Knowledge management maturity models: identification of gaps and improvement proposal

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of knowledge management maturity models, indicating shortcomings, identifying relevant factors for the models and suggesting improvements. This study can be characterized as a theoretical research based on a systematic literature review. This paper contributed through a review and analysis of existing knowledge management maturity models to bring forth their contributions and drawbacks; the main criticisms and shortcomings of these models and factors relevant to the development of knowledge management maturity were identified, systematic and conceptually, which must be confirmed and explored through empirical research.

Knowledge Management Maturity Contributes to Project-Based Companies in an Open Innovation Era

“…It is clear that the organizations included in the survey were aware of KM systems and recognized its importance; there were some measures in place, but there was still no monitoring or measure of the practices in place. According to [32], the organizations had successfully completely stage 2 and may be going through stage 3. For [36], these companies were in stage 3 with their knowledge management mechanisms partially deployed.…”

“…The analysis performed on the distinct phases shows that there were basic infrastructures in place, and that organizations and managers promoted sharing, learning and storage of knowledge. Therefore, European project-based organizations are in the third stage of KM maturity (Table 4), a period that is characterized by formalization of KM protocols and introduction of basic measures and instruments, as defined by [32,36].…”

“…This lack of normalization also makes KM outcomes hard to measure, impairing the assessment of an organization's maturity regarding its KM routines. According to Escrivão and Da Silva [32], the KM maturity level portrays the different stages of growth of KM procedures that an organization has already achieved. The authors also defend that a KM maturity model (KMMM) is needed to assess KM initiatives from several perspectives in order to obtain a complete picture.…”

“…The authors also defend that a KM maturity model (KMMM) is needed to assess KM initiatives from several perspectives in order to obtain a complete picture. Most KMMMs can be divided into five stages: the starting point, where employees recognize the concept of KM but there are no procedures in place; a second stage where there is consciousness of KM's importance and relevance to the organization; third, the organization has put in place some basic infrastructure; fourth, KM practices are systematically supported, are part of the organizational culture and are monitored and measured; finally, these practices are continually improved and are integrated in the external network [32][33][34][35][36].…”

Knowledge management maturity assessment frameworks: A proposed holistic approach

“…Maturity is the degree to which an object, technology, process, or organization evolves over time (Klimko, 2001;Jiuling et al, 2012;Serenko et al, 2015;Escrivão & Silva, 2019). Maturity models (MM) in organizations methodically classify procedures and determine phases, which lead to the manager's plans (Churchill & Lewis, 1983;Gaál et al, 2008).…”