Theory Building in Knowledge Management

Abstract

The development of knowledge management (KM) in theory and praxis continues to involve a wide range of disciplines and contributors, each bringing their respective experiences, beliefs, and practices. Two of the main disciplines that contribute to the KM discourse are information systems and management. However, this study of KM has revealed an apparent dichotomy between those researchers from an information systems background and those from a management background. Approaches and models based on each perspective have emerged, but there is little evidence of synergy and convergence. This article shows that attempts to develop an optimal KM methodology are misplaced unless the underlying assumptions and paradigms are identified and understood. Furthermore, it is proposed that KM is currently in a state of “pre-science,” wherein proponents of different paradigms have their own beliefs and values and often disagree with others about fundamentals within the field.

Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review

“…Hazlett et al(2005) once stated that KM is stuck in a state of "prescience" because of the disagreements about fundamental issues within KM that hamper the progress of the field and their proposition continues to remain valid. It is noted however that, unexpectedly, there is a higher level of agreement on secondary issues, such as the role of IT in KM and the factors that contribute to the success of organisational KM.…”

Making Links between Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance

“…With computer sciences, the debate has focused on the development of technological tools, integrative platforms such as portals, networks (intranet, groupware, etc. ), decision aids or support and information analysis systems (data warehouse) (Tiwana, 1999;Hazlett et al, 2005).…”

“…A deeper examination of the literature on KM reveals that few studies propose an OP-oriented approach based on an integrative framework, despite the fact that reference is often made to OP in KM definitions (Ipe, 2003;Hazlett et al, 2005;Kalling, 2007). Furthermore, integrative frameworks that show links between the needs of the organization and the organization's strategic objectives are even more scarce (Hazlett et al, 2005;Rivard & Roy, 2005;Zack et al, 2009;Kuo & Ye, 2010).…”

“…Furthermore, integrative frameworks that show links between the needs of the organization and the organization's strategic objectives are even more scarce (Hazlett et al, 2005;Rivard & Roy, 2005;Zack et al, 2009;Kuo & Ye, 2010). Rivard & Roy (2005) propose an approach, which they call "strategic knowledge management".…”

“…Certain authors have suggested that this limitation requires an effort to define integrative frameworks that deal with an organization as a complete system (Earl, 2001;Hazlett et al, 2005;Martensson, 2000;Perrin et al, 2006). In addition, since KM holds a strategic role in organizational management, a proper understanding of how it can help improve the performance of organizations remains a priority for management research (Earl, 2001;Perrin et al, 2006;Quintas, 2008).…”