AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN
ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Sabrina S. S. Fu, Matthew K. O. Lee
Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Keywords: Organizational knowledge management, Know
ledge management technology, Knowledge management
systems, knowledge management review, Research Issues in Knowledge Management
Abstract: Knowledge is an important key asset to many organizations. Organizations which can manage knowledge
effectively are expected to gain competitive advantage. Information technologies have been widely
employed to facilitate Knowledge Management (KM). This paper reviews and synthesise the main prior
conceptual and empirical literature, resulting in a comprehensive framework for research in IT-enabled KM
at the organizational level. The framework aids the generation of potential hypotheses for future research
and the understanding and classification of existing KM related research.
1 INTRODUCTION
Globalization and advanced technological
development help organizations expand markets and
diversify risk. However, they also render markets
more volatile and competitive. Knowledge which
can help organizations become more creative and
provide better quality and efficient services to
customers becomes the key to success. As
telecommunication infrastructure and information
systems become more capable, organizations and
researchers are also concerned with how IT or IS can
facilitate KM and how to justify the corresponding
investments. As there are different interpretations of
knowledge and a variety of KM
technologies/systems, people who want to conduct
KM empirical studies at the organizational level
should carefully and clearly define all knowledge
related terms in order to facilitate generalization and
comparison of studies. In order to facilitate future
research on organizational KM, a thorough and
congruent understanding of basic concepts and
limitations in existing KM research is required and a
comprehensive research framework is needed.
The paper will start with a literature review of
th
e basic concepts relating to knowledge, KM and
KM technologies/systems, drawn from the current
body of relevant literature. Then, a comprehensive
framework for research in IT-enabled KM at the
organizational level will be constructed through a
synthesis of prior research frameworks.
Subsequently, existing empirical quantitative KM
research will be reviewed. Conclusions will then be
drawn.
2 BASIC CONCEPTS
2.1 Knowledge
Knowledge is different from information and data. It
resides in individuals and is created only when
individuals have processed or responded to a
collection of information (Alavi et al. 2001;
Malhotra 2001). There are different classifications of
knowledge, e.g. tacit-explicit, individual-collective
(Nonaka 1994; Alavi et al. 2001) and product-
expertise (Constant et al. 1994). Besides, knowledge
is different from tangible assets which are provided
and easily declared ownership by organizations. The
difference in perceptions between self-ownership
and collective ownership of knowledge will affect
effectiveness of KM (Jarvenpaa et al. 2001). As of
the word “knowledge” is susceptible to multiple
interpretations, it is often interpreted differently by
people with different background. Therefore,
researchers who want to conduct KM studies should
carefully define the term ‘knowledge’ in order to
protect internal validity and facilitate comparison
among studies.
151
S. S. Fu S. and K. O. Lee M. (2005).
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.
In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 151-156
DOI: 10.5220/0002554801510156
Copyright
c
SciTePress
2.2 Knowledge Management
KM is process-oriented and context-specific.
Business process is not defined by functional areas.
It is a set of closely related activities carried out to
achieve a business goal. KM should be designed in
such a way that useful knowledge can be created,
captured, transferred and applied in each activity
along the entire business process if necessary.
KM is consisted of four main processes: (1)
creation, (2) storage/retrieval, (3) transfer, and (4)
application (Alavi et al. 2001). Although the concept
of KM as a process is commonly adopted by
different researchers, different KM processes have
been identified (e.g. (Holsapple et al. 1999; Gold et
al. 2001)). Organizational members within different
culture may also have different perceptions towards
KM. Besides, the KM context of organizations (e.g.
knowledge requirements, KM processes and KM
strategies, etc.) may be different according to their
competitive bases (product-based or service-based)
and the volatility of business environment
(Kankanhalli et al. 2003). Therefore, researchers
should carefully define KM and identify appropriate
samples in order to minimize errors and provide
reliable results.
2.3 KM Technologies or Systems
KM has become a socio-technical issue (Alavi et al.
2001; Lee et al. 2003). Information technologies and
systems that are used to facilitate KM processes are
called KM technologies or systems (KMS). As the
requirements of KM become higher, KMS has
become a very important factor in KM (Alavi et al.
2001; Lee et al. 2003).
Taking the advantages of rapid technological
development, a wide variety of KMS is available.
However, different KMS may differ substantially in
complexity and functionality (e.g. e-mail and
Customer Relationship Management Systems).
Therefore, researchers should be careful in selecting
KMS for their research in order to meet their
research objectives and provide reliable and valid
results.
3 A COMPREHENSIVE
FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING
IT-ENABLED KM AT THE
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
Prior empirical studies which have gone beyond
qualitative case studies provide important pointers to
the type of variables used in conceptualizing KM
theories for studying IT-enabled KM at the
organizational level. However, prior studies of this
sort tend to be disjoint and relatively few in number.
Although there are some existing models, they all
have some limitations. It is therefore necessary to
develop a comprehensive framework in order to
provide an integrative view of potential KM research
for guiding the future empirical study and classify
existing empirical studies to obtain a more holistic
understanding of current empirical work in the KM
field.
Three models of previous empirical KM research
were used, integrated and modified. Among them,
Lee and Choi’s integrative KM research framework
(Lee et al. 2003) was found to be the most
comprehensive. It proposed that KM enablers exist
within an organizational environment (e.g. culture,
structure, people and information technology) would
affect KM processes which would then enhance
organizational performance through KM
intermediate outcome. However, KMS exist within
both an organizational environment and an external
environment (Ives et al. September, 1980). In
Moffett, McAdam, Parkison’s MeCTIP model
(Moffett et al. 2003), it has proposed that macro-
environmental factors would influence KM
indirectly through elements of organizational
environment. Besides, direct outcome of effective
IT-enabled KM process does not necessarily lead to
effective organizational performance. It is because
benefits of IT are unique to a particular organization;
and thus appropriate organizational changes should
be formed to complement IT investment and achieve
the greatest effectiveness (Brynjolfsson et al. 1998).
In Khalifa’s model (Khalifa et al. 2001), it proposed
that the effect of intermediate outcome on
performance was mediated or moderated by
appropriation. Our integrated framework with
suggested propositions was shown in figure 1.
3.1 Research Type I - Impact of KM
Enablers on KM Processes
This type of research can focus on the identification
of important KM enablers and the relationships
between variables of KM enablers and KM
processes. KM is a socio-technical issue. Factors
within an organizational context can be classified
into (1) organizational climate (e.g. culture, structure,
strategy (Khalifa et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003)), (2)
technological climate (e.g. IT support (Lee et al.
2003), system standardization and compatibility and
technical usability (Moffett et al. 2003)) and (3)
human factors (e.g. employee emancipation and
learning capacity (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2001))
ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
152
P3
within an organizational environment. Significant
effect of those KM enablers on KM processes has
been found in previous studies. Therefore, a
corollary to Proposition 1 would be:
P1: Organization-environmental factors have
significant effects on KM processes.
KM enablers are those factors which can
facilitate and enhance KM processes. They can be
categorized into two types: external and internal.
External factors refers to those existed in macro-
environment (Moffett et al. 2003). They will affect
KM indirectly through an organizational context
(Moffett et al. 2003). External variables such as
partnership or alliance were found to be significantly
related to the use of IT in KM (Gottschalk et al.
2002). As a corollary, Proposition 2 would be:
P2: The association between macro-
environmental factors and KM process is
mediated by mediated / moderated by
organization-environmental factors.
3.2 Research Type II - Impact of KM
Processes on KM Intermediate
Outcome
This type of research can focus on studying the
direct benefits or costs (i.e. KM intermediate
outcome (Lee et al. 2003)) derived from changes in
KM processes after adopting or implementing new
KMS. Although KMS may facilitate KM processes,
IT-enabled KM is not a sufficient condition for
ultimate business success (Janz et al. 1997; Khalifa
et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003). Even though
performance improvement is observed, it may be
due to other factors such as more capital investment,
change in management and establishment of reward
schemes. Moreover, organizational performance
including tangible and intangible benefits and costs
(e.g. customers’ satisfaction and service quality) is
difficult to measure and there is a lack of reliable
measurement. Therefore, in order to have a more
effective assessment of the impacts derived directly
from the use of KM, intermediate outcomes (Lee et
al. 2003) are needed to be measured. It was found
that organizational creativity would significantly be
affected by the knowledge creation process
(Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003). As
a corollary, Proposition 3 would be:
P3: KM processes have significant effects on KM
intermediate outcomes.
3.3 Research Type III - Impact of
KM Intermediate Outcomes on
Organizational Performance
This type of study can focus on the development of
measurements for appropriation and organizational
performance; and the study of how KM intermediate
outcomes can result in improved organizational
performance. Intermediate outcome does not
necessarily lead to performance. Appropriate
organizational changes (Brynjolfsson et al. 1998)
and use of KM technologies (Triplett 1999) that are
suited to an organizational context are necessary for
Appropriation
Macro-
Environment
Knowledge
Management
Enablers
Organizational
Performance
KM Process
KM
Intermediate
Outcome
- Creation
- Storage /
Retrieve
- Transfer
- Application
P1
P8
P3
P4
P5
P7
P6
P2
P9
Figure 1: An Integrated Framework for Studying Multifaceted Relationships in KM at the Organizational Level
Organization
Environment
- Organizational
Climate
- Technological
Climate
- Human Factor
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
153
improvement in organizational performance.
Existence of adequate KM processes may contribute
direct benefits. However, it does not necessarily lead
to KM effectiveness as measured by performance
impacts unless KM structures are used properly
(Khalifa et al. 2001). As a corollary, Proposition 4
and 5 would be:
P4: KM intermediate outcomes have significant
effects on organizational performance.
P5: The association between KM intermediate
outcome and organizational performance is
mediated / moderated by appropriation.
3.4 Research Type IV - Reverse
Impacts of KM on an
Organization
Most previous research in KM usually study
relationships in one direction only, e.g. the causal
effect of KM enablers on KM processes and the
effect of KM processes on KM intermediate
outcomes or organizational performance. However,
as many organizations have already adopted some
kinds of KMS to facilitate KM, it is time to study
how those components are related in another/reverse
directions.
When the impacts of KM (i.e. intermediate
outcome or performance) are recognized, macro-
environmental factors and organizational context
will be changed. If positive and satisfactory impacts
are resulted, e.g. improved communication and
decision making, more resources will be invested in
establishing and enhancing KM and employees will
be more willing to engage in KM processes. When
negative or dissatisfactory outcomes are resulted, e.g.
threat of privacy, power relations and inequities
(Schultze et al. 2002), more resources have to be
invested to find solutions and employees’ trust and
motivation will be deteriorated. Macro-
environmental factors will also be affected directly
or indirectly, e.g. market environment, inter-
organizational relationships, external pressures (Teo
et al. 2003), technological standards, law and
regulations, etc. Therefore, as a corollary,
Proposition 6 and Proposition 7 would be:
P6: Changes in organizational performance have
significant effect on KM enablers.
P7: KM intermediate outcomes have significant
effect on KM enablers.
Feedback from changes in KM processes affect
organizational context. After the KM processes are
affected, the culture of the organization, employees’
attitudes towards KM, employees’ knowledge and
requirements for organizational technological level
may be changed. Besides, more issues relating to IT-
enabled KM processes may be experienced, e.g.
problems of IS security and privacy. Organizational
members are inevitably affected and new KMS may
have to be adopted to maintain or improve the KM
process. As a corollary, Proposition 8 would be:
P8: Changes in KM processes have significant
impact on organizational factors.
The changes in organization context will
probably affect macro-environment (e.g.
government policies and technological development).
For example, more and more people are focusing on
the effect of privacy on KM and privacy regulations
have been established (Wheelwright 1999). Steps
have also been done to protect users’ privacy and
alley their concerns by securing privacy through
careful design and implementation of KMS such as
allowing notice and choice of sharing knowledge,
highly targeted message, enabling novel kinds of ad
hoc conversation and anonymous messaging (Adar
et al. 2003; Schirmer 2003). As a corollary,
Proposition 9 would be:
P9: The association between KM process and
macro-environmental factors is mediated /
moderated by organization-environmental
factors.
4 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
REVIEW
KM and KMS-related journals published between
1998 and 2003 were found. There were totally 293
articles. Only ten of them have been studied within
an IS context and covered empirical quantitative
studies. Table 1 summarizes the studies.
Most of the studies found were concentrated on the
north-east diagonal of the matrix. Type I, II and III
KM research have been studied. The hypotheses
studied were unidirectional. They focused mainly on
the impact of organization-environment KM
enablers or KM process. Besides, most of them were
interested in studying changes in organizational
performance. However, research on macro-
environment KM enabler is few. On the main
diagonal matrix, it shows that some previous
research has studied the relationships among
organization-environment enablers. There are no
studies stated on the south-west diagonal of the
matrix. Type IV KM research is currently poorly
covered and needs more attention.
Beside the problem of limited empirical
quantitative studies relating to IT-enabled KM, there
are some limitations of existing research. Among
those existing empirical quantitative studies, there is
a lack of replication of work and standard
ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
154
Table 1: Empirical Quantitative KM Research
DV
IV
Macro-
environment KM
Enabler
Organization-
environment KM
Enabler
KM Process
KM Intermediate
Outcome
Organizational
Performance
Macro-
environment KM
Enabler
(Gottschalk et al.
2002)
(Lee 2000)
Organization-
environment KM
Enabler
(Jarvenpaa et al.
2001; Ryan et al.
2001)
(Becerra-
Fernandez et al.
2001; Lee et al.
2003; Politis
2003)
(Lee et al. 2003)
(Lee 2000; Gold
et al. 2001; Lee
et al. 2003)
KM Process
(Janz et al. 1997;
Becerra-
Fernandez et al.
2001)
(Lee 2000; Gold
et al. 2001;
Karlsen et al.
2003; Politis
2003)
KM Intermediate
Outcome
Organizational
Performance
IV – Independent Variable DV – Dependent Variable
measurements. Most of these studies seem to be ad
hoc without much reference to each other. Different
researchers have different focuses and use different
items or variables to operationalize constructs. For
example, “Strategic Grid” (Ryan et al. 2001),
collaboration (Lee et al. 2003), trust, learning,
organizational intent and higher care (Zarraga et al.
2003) have been used in different studies to study
organizational context. These reduce the precision,
generalizability and authenticity of the theories
developed. Besides, important KM issues (King et al.
2002) recognized by KM practitioners and corporate
executives do not receive enough attentions in
academic research, e.g. how to use KM to provide
strategic advantage, how to motivate individuals to
contribute their knowledge to a KM system, how to
ensure knowledge security and how to assess the
financial gain and loss. Further research will be
needed to contribute useful solutions to the business
world.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study gives an overview of existing research in
KM including both qualitative and quantitative
studies; and provides a basic idea of what KM at the
organizational level is. This is especially useful for
new entrants to study KM while current participants
can have an overview and be aware of some existing
problems in KM research. KM is a very broad area
of study.
There are a lot of qualitative studies and well-
known theories. However, there is a lack of
empirical quantitative studies, replication of research,
comprehensive research models and standard
measurements. This deficiency hinders the ongoing
validation of existing theories and reduces the
generalizability, realism and precision of existing
theories. Therefore, more empirical quantitative
studies will be needed. In order to facilitate future
empirical study in IT-enabled KM at the
organizational level, an integrated framework with
multi-faceted relationships was developed. Potential
research and propositions for future study were also
presented. Examples of variables were also given to
facilitate the generation of hypothesis. The
framework can help provide guidance, make
comparison of prior studies easier and facilitate the
generation of cumulative knowledge.
REFERENCES
Adar, E., R. Lukose, C. Sengupta, J. Tyler and N. Good
(2003). "Shock: Aggregating Information While
Preserving Privacy." Information Systems Frontiers
5(1): 15.
Alavi, M. and D. E. Leidner (2001). "Review: Knowledge
Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues." MIS
Quarterly 25(1): 107-136.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and R. Sabherwal (2001).
"Organizational Knowledge Management: A
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
155
Contingency Perspective." Journal of Management
Information Systems 18(1): 23-55.
Brynjolfsson, E. and L. M. Hitt (1998). "Beyond the
Productivity Paradox." Communications of the ACM
41(8): 49-55.
Constant, D., S. Kiesier and L. Sproull (1994). "What's
Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about
Information Sharing." Information Systems Research
5(4): 400-421.
Gold, A. H., A. Malhotra and A. H. Segars (2001).
"Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective." Journal of Management
Information Systems 18(1): 185-214.
Gottschalk, P. and V. K. Khandelwal (2002). "Inter-
Organizational Knowledge Management: A
Comparison of Law Firms in Norway and Australia."
Journal of Computer Information Systems 42(5): 50-
58.
Holsapple, C. W. and K. D. Joshi (1999). Description and
Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management
Frameworks. The 32nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Services, Hawaii.
Ives, B., S. Hamilton and G. B. Davis (September, 1980).
"A Framework for Research in Computer-Based
Management Information." Management Science
26(9): 910-934.
Janz, B. D., J. C. Wetherbe, G. B. Davis and R. A. Noe
(1997). "Reengineering the Systems Development
Process: The Link between Autonomous Teams and
Business Process Outcomes." Journal of Management
Information Systems 14(1): 41-68.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. S. Staples (2001). "Exploring
Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of
Information and Expertise." Journal of Management
Information Systems 18(1): 151-183.
Kankanhalli, A., F. Tanudidjaja, J. Sutanto and B. C. Y.
Tan (2003). "The Role of IT in Successful Knowledge
Management Initiatives." Communications of the
ACM 46(9): 69-73.
Karlsen, J. T. and P. Gottschalk (2003). "An Empirical
Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms for IT
Projects." Journal of Computer Information Systems
44(1): 112.
Khalifa, M., R. Lam and M. Lee (2001). An Integrative
Framework for Knowledge Management Effectiveness.
International Conference on Information Systems,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
King, W. R., P. V. Marks and S. McCoy (2002). "The
Most Important Issues in Knowledge Management."
Communications of the ACM 45(9): 93-97.
Lee, H. and B. Choi (2003). "Knowledge Management
Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance:
An Integrative View and Empirical Examination."
Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1):
179-228.
Lee, J. N. (2000). "The Impact of Knowledge Sharing,
Organizational Capability and Partnership Quality on
IS Outsourcing Success." Information & Management
38(5): 323-335.
Malhotra, Y. (2001). Knowledge Management for E-
Business Performance: Advancing Information
Strategy to "Internet Time". Knowledge Management
and Business Model Innovation. Y. Malhotra. London,
Idea Group Publishing.
Moffett, S., R. McAdam and S. Parkinson (2003). "An
Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Management
Applications." Journal of Knowledge Management
7(3): 6-26.
Nonaka, I. (1994). "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14-
37.
Politis, J. D. (2003). "The Connection between Trust and
Knowledge Management: What Are Its Implications
for Team Performance." Journal of Knowledge
Management 7(5): 55-66.
Ryan, S. D. and V. R. Prybutok (2001). "Factors Affecting
The Adoption of Knowledge Management
Technologies: A Discriminative Approach." Journal of
Computer Information Systems 41(4): 31-37.
Schirmer, A. L. (2003). "Privacy and Knowledge
Management: Challenges in the Design of the Lotus
Discovery Server." IBM Systems Journal 42(3): 519-
531.
Schultze, U. and D. E. Leidner (2002). "Studying
Knowledge Management in Information Systems
Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions."
MIS Quarterly 26(3): 213-242.
Teo, H. H., K. K. Wei and I. Benbasat (2003). "Predicting
Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An
Institutional Perspective." MIS Quarterly 27(1): 19-49.
Triplett, J. E. (1999). "The Slow Productivity Paradox:
What do Computers do to Productivity?" The
Canadian Journal of Economics 32(2): 309-334.
Wheelwright, G. (1999). How to nurture those 'eureka
moments': PRINCIPLES AND ETHICS by Geoffrey
Wheelwright: Employees should be rewarded,
recognised and promoted for the amount of knowledge
and insight they share:[Surveys edition]. Financial
Times. London (UK): 10.
Zarraga, C. and J. M. Garca-Falcon (2003). "Factors
Favoring Knowledge Management in Work Teams."
Journal of Knowledge Management 7(2): 81-96.
ICEIS 2005 - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
156