Apurva Anand et al.

/ International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Understanding Knowledge Management: a

literature review
Apurva Anand
Research Scholar
Mechanical Engineering Department
M.N. National Institute of Technology,
Allahabad-211004, Uttar Pradesh, India

M.D.Singh
Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department
M.N. National Institute of Technology,
Allahabad-211004, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract:
This paper presents review of literature on Knowledge management (KM) characterizing the various
terminologies and aims to explore the world of KM in a different way, to review the current status and
analyze the main contributions, agreements and disagreements among researchers and practitioners. It
provides a high-level overview of a number of key terms, concepts, traditional definition and theory
involved with KM, which are critically reviewed and their features are highlighted. Approaches to KM
process are considered and their connections and differences are discussed. There are a number of
different approaches to the KM process such as those by Dagnfous & Kah(2006), Lee et.al.(2005), Wong
& Aspinwall (2004), Bukowitz & Williams (2003), Mc Elory (1999), Meyer & Zack (1996), and Wiig
(1993). By comparing and doing the critical analysis of these approaches, the major stages are identified
as Knowledge capture and creation, Knowledge organization and retention, Knowledge dissemination
and Knowledge utilization. At the end we have summarized the benefits of KM. The main contribution of
this study is the compilation of literature on KM and to understand the basic concepts and different
approaches, depending on their more descriptive perspective.
Keywords: Knowledge management; KM Introductory analysis; KM basics; KM literature; KM approaches;
KM process.

1. Introduction

KM is a emerging field which can contribute a lot to engineering field, yet many issues are to be resolved, and
much learning yet to be discovered because still it has not taken its final shape . It had start taking shape and
come into sight on the maps of seminars and conference organizers in the beginning of 1990s, but it is important
to note here that debate had started much earlier (Hayek, 1945; Bell, 1978). There are many books, articles and
special issues on knowledge and its management during the last few decades is a fact recognized by all. Drukes
(1960) was the first to coin the term knowledge worker. Organization can learn from past experiences stored in
corporate memory systems (Senge, 1990). Barton-Leonard (1995) documented the case of chappual steel as KM
success story. Nonaka and Takenchi (1995) studied how knowledge is produced, used, and diffused within
organizations and how such knowledge contributed to the diffusion of innovation. A number of people,
perceiving the value of measuring intellectual assets, recognized the growing importance of organizational
knowledge as a competitive asset (Sveiby, 1996; Nortan & Keplan, 1996; and Edvineson & Malone, 1997).

We have historically categorized the KM journey into three generations; the period 1990-1995 can be called as
the first generation of KM. The initial work started with defining KM, investigating the potential benefits of KM
for businesses, and designing specific KM projects (Senge, 1990; Nonaka, 1994; Quinn, 1992; andWigg, 1993).
Advancement on artificial intelligence influenced research on KM, mainly in the direction of knowledge
representation and storing can be seen (Mui &Carthy, 1987; Levine &Pomerol, 1989; and Ignizo, 1991). KM
practical application to organizations started around 1996, which can be stated as the second generation of KM.
Many organization have started implementing KM during this generation, KM research issues focous was
business development (Grant,1997; Thierauf, 1999; and McAdam & Reid, 2001), organizations (Alavi &
Leidner,1999; Hasan, & Gould,2003;and LanSia, & Al-Hawamdeh,2003), frameworks (Holsapple &
Joshi,2002; Rubenstein-Montano, B., et.al,2001; Chua, 2003; and Maier & Remus, 2003), operations and

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 926

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

processes(Rajan, Lank, & Chapple,1999; Pervan, & Ellison,2003), techonigical advancement (Carneiro,2001;
Nemati,et.al.,2002; Liao,2003; and Metaxiotis, & Psarras,2003).Third generation emerged around 2002 where
focous sems to be on result part such as the link between knowing and action (Paraponaris,2003).All knowledge
is inherently social, cultural and organizational knowledge can only be realized through change in organizational
activity and practice. Table1 presents some of the important research contributions to the field of KM, which are
considered today as reference points for further research.

Table 1: Important research contributions to KM

KM topics Generation Authors

Explicit, Tacit and Implicit Polyani (1966); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
knowledge Ist Gen

KM fundamentals Ist Gen Wiig (1993),Liebowitz &Beckman (1998)

nd
KM frameworks II Gen Holsapple and Joshi (1997), Rubenstein et al.(2001)
nd
KM projects II Gen Davenport et al. (1998)
nd
KM and AI II Gen Fowler (2000),Liebowitz (2001)
rd
KM and decision support III Gen Courtney (2001),Bolloju et al. (2002)
rd
KM surveys III Gen Liao (2003), Kakabadse et al. (2003), Singh et.al.(2006)
Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006), Wong & Aspinwall
(2005)
KM software tools IIIrd Gen Tyndale (2002),
KM in SMEs IIIrd Gen McAdam and Reid (2001), Wong & Aspinwall (2004),
rd
KM in higher education III Gen Rowley (2000); Metaxiotis and Psarras (2003)
rd
KM standardization III Gen Weber et al.(2002)

At the end there are several noteworthy forums for comments or articles, as well as publicizing events, seminars
and conferences. This helps in connecting academics and professionals who show the same interests and
concurs on the topic. This study takes on this challenge and tries firstly to lay down what the term KM involves
and theory related to it, secondly it attempts to study KM process by underlining its connections and differences.

2. Theoretical Perspective

The theoretical perspective is concerned with defining and describing the fundamentals of KM. Because the KM
discipline is so young, we believes that presenting a variety of views is better than trying to describe the subject
from just one or two perspectives. This section begins with the definition of basic terms. Then the characteristics
and relationships between knowledge concepts are described.

2.1. Definition of Knowledge

Definition of knowledge ranges from practical to the conceptual to the philosophical and from narrow to broad
in scope. The perception of knowledge has been actively discussed since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.
Socrates, in Theaetetus by Plato (369 BC), conceptualized knowledge as a true belief with an account
commonly identified as the concept of justified true belief but then indicated this definition remained
inadequate. Knowledge has since received many definitions. Table 2 presents definitions are relevant to the
topic of KM:

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 927

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Table 2: Definitions of knowledge

Serial Definitions of Knowledge

Reference
Number
1 Knowledge is a factor of production Nonaka &
Takeuchi (1995)
2 Knowledge resides in the head of the individuals . . . knowledge is that which is Grant(1996)
known.
3 Knowledge consists of truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments Wiig(1993)
and expectations, methodologies and know-how.
4 Knowledge is information in context coupled with an understanding of how to Davenport&
use it Prusak(1998)
5 Knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation, Davenport&
and reflection. Long(1998)
6 Knowledge is reasoning about information to actively guide task execution, Beckman(1997)
problem-solving and decision-making in order to perform, learn and teach
7 Knowledge is defined as understanding the effects of input variables on the Bohn(1994)
output.
8 Knowledge as new or modified insight or predictive understanding. Kock &
Queen(1998)
9 Knowledge is the whole set of insights, experiences, and procedures which are Van der Spek &
considered correct and true, and which therefore guide the thoughts, behaviors, Spijkervet (1997)
and communication of people
10 Knowledge is justified personal belief that increases an individual’s capacity to Alavi &
take effective action. Leidner(1999)
11 Knowledge refers to an individual's stock of information, skills, experience, Alexander &
beliefs and memories. Schallert(1991)
12 Knowledge originates in the head of an individual (the mental state of having Bender &
ideas, facts, concepts, data and techniques, as recorded in an individual’s Fish(2000)
memory) and builds on information that is transformed and enriched by
personal experience, beliefs and values with decision and action-relevant
meaning. Knowledge formed by an individual could differ from knowledge
possessed by another person receiving the same information.

At this stage we will attempt to understand the word “knowledge”, it seem to mean three things by the use of the
word "knowledge (Nickols, 2010)." First, it refer to a state of knowing, by which we also mean to be acquainted
or familiar with, to be aware of, to recognize facts, methods, principles, techniques and so on. This common
usage corresponds to what is often referred to as "know about." Second, the word "knowledge" refers to "the
capacity for action," an understanding or grasp of facts, methods, principles and techniques sufficient to apply
them in the course of making things happen. This corresponds to "know how." Third, the term "knowledge"
refers to codified, captured and accumulated facts, methods, principles, techniques and so on. When we use the
term this way, we are referring to a body of knowledge that has been articulated and captured in the form of
books, papers, formulas, procedure manuals, computer code and so on.

2.2. Source of Knowledge

It is important to note that knowledge can only be gained or obtained from outside sources or generated
internally. Even though knowledge is available from outside or internal sources, it generally originates within
individuals, teams, or organization processes. Once extracted it may be stored in a repository to be accessed and
shared by other individuals or groups within an organization. Davenport and Prusak (1998) suggested five types
of knowledge that correspond to the source of each:

 Acquired knowledge comes from outside the organization.

 Dedicated resources are those in which an organization sets aside some staff members or an entire
department (usually research and development) to develop within the institution for a specific purpose.

 Fusion is knowledge created by bringing together people with different perspectives to work on the same
project.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 928

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

 Adaptation is knowledge that results from responding to new processes or technologies in the market place.

 Knowledge networking is knowledge in which people share information with one another formally or
informally.

2.2.1. Knowledge Dimensions

There are many aspects around which knowledge can be described. In this paper, several characteristics of
knowledge will be discussed such as storage, media, accessibility, hierarchy and difference between data,
information and knowledge. In addition, some definitions of KM will be considered for taking a more in depth
look.

2.2.2. Knowledge storage media

There are several storage media in which knowledge can reside. The best known can be human mind,
organization, document, and computer as shown in figure1. Knowledge in the human mind is often difficult to
access; organizational knowledge is often diffuse and distributed; document knowledge can range from free text
to well-structured charts and tables; computer knowledge is formalized, sharable, and often well-structured and
well-organized.

Figure1: Knowledge storage media and its features

2.3. Knowledge Accessibility

There is the dimension of knowledge accessibility. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have divided accessibility into
two categories: tacit and explicit. Yet, in many books it is viewed that there may be three stages of accessibility:
tacit, implicit, and explicit (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998). Accessibility can be mapped to storage media.
Knowledge gains in value as it becomes more accessible and formal.

2.3.1. Tacit Knowledge

Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be expressed (See Figure 2). As Michael Polanyi (1966), the chemist-
turned-philosopher who coined the term put it, "We know more than we can tell." Polanyi used the example of
being able to recognize a person’s face but being only vaguely able to describe how that is done. This is an
instance of pattern recognition. What we recognize is the whole or the gestalt and decomposing it into its
constituent elements so as to be able to articulate them fails to capture its essence. Reading the reaction on a
customer’s face or entering text at a high rate of speed using a word processor offer other instances of situations
in which we are able to perform well but unable to articulate exactly what we know or how we put it into
practice. In such cases, the knowing is in the doing, a point to which we will return shortly.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 929

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Accessible indirectly
Tacit only with difficulty
Human Mind Knowledge through knowledge
& Storage Mediate Feature
elicitation and
Organization observation of
behavior.

Figure2: Tacit Knowledge (storage media and its feature)

2.3.2. Implicit Knowledge

Implicit knowledge is knowledge that can be expressed (See Figure 3). Its existence is implied by or inferred
from observable behavior or performance. This is the kind of knowledge that can often be teased out of a
competent performer by a task analyst, knowledge engineer or other person skilled in identifying the kind of
knowledge that can be articulated but hasn’t. In analyzing the task in which underwriters at an company
processed applications, for instance, it quickly became clear that the range of outcomes for the underwriters’
work took three basic forms: (1). they could approve the application, (2). they could deny it or (3). They could
counter offer. Yet, not one of the underwriters articulated these as boundaries on their work at the outset of the
analysis. Once these outcomes were identified, it was a comparatively simple matter to identify the criteria used
to determine the response to a given application. In so doing, implicit knowledge became explicit knowledge.

Accessible through
Human Mind querying and
& discussion, but informal
Implicit knowledge must first be
Organization Storage Mediate Feature
Knowledg
located and then
communicated.

Figure3: Implicit Knowledge (storage media and its feature)

2.3.3. Explicit Knowledge

Explicit knowledge, as the first word in the term implies, is knowledge that has been expressed and captured in
the form of text, tables, diagrams, product specifications and so on (See Figure 4). In Harvard Business Review
article titled "The Knowledge Creating Company”. Ikujiro Nonaka(1991) refers to explicit knowledge as
"formal and systematic" and offers product specifications, scientific formulas and computer programs as
examples. An example of explicit knowledge with which we are all familiar is the formula for finding the area
of a rectangle (i.e., length time’s width). Other examples of explicit knowledge include documented best
practices, the formalized standards by which a claim is adjudicated and the official expectations for performance
set forth in written work objectives.

Readily accessible, as
Document well as documented into
& Storage Mediate Explicit Feature formal knowledge
Knowledge
Computer sources that are often
well-organized.

Figure4: Explicit Knowledge (storage media and its feature)

3. Key Terms Relevant To KM

The important terms identified on the bases of the literature survey conducted are data, information, knowledge
and wisdom. Table 3 presents the origins of these terms which shed some light on the derivation of their
meaning.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 930

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Table 3: Linguistic origins of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom

Word Origin First recorded usage in English

Data Latin (datum, dati) 1646, Hammond: ‘‘From all this heap of data it would
not follow that it was necessary’’

Information Adopted from Old French (informacion), 1386, Chaucer: ‘‘Whanne Melibee hadde herd the
adapted from Latin (informa tion, grete skiles and reasons of Dam Prudence, and hire
informationem) wise informacions and techynges”
Knowledge Middle English (knaulage, knowleche). 1300 approx., Cursor M.: ‘‘To mak knaulage
Constructed on Old English and Teutonic withsum-thing Til sir august, bair ouer-king’’
origins
Wisdom Old English and Frisian (wı´sdo´m), as well 888, Ælfred Boeth: ‘‘ba com bær gan in to me
as Old Saxon (wıˆsdoˆm) heofencund Wisdom’’

Source: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. under revision (2006)

KM
Now we are trying to put together a collection of alternative ways of defining data, information, and knowledge
on the bases of the literature survey conducted in table 4. This table demonstrates that there is no agreement
within the literature of KM, but it also shows interesting similarities. Most of the authors defined knowledge,
fewer defined information, fewer still defined data, and almost few or none defined wisdom.

Table 4: Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom

Data Information Knowledge Wisdom Author

Information in context Aune(1970)

Symbols Data that are processed to be Ability to answer ‘‘How’’ Wisdom is an evaluated Ackoff (1989)
useful questions understanding
Justified true belief Goldman (1991)

Data that make a difference King (1993)

Capacity for effective action Argyris( 1993)

Data put in context. Justified true belief. Nonaka and

Information is about Knowledge is tied to action. Takeuchi (1995)
meaning
Data in context Integrated information in Gallup et al. (2002)
context

Static, Facts based on reformatted Higher level of abstraction Wisdom is the highest level Awad and Ghazi (
unorganized or processed data. that resides in people’s of abstraction, with vision, 2004)
and Aggregation of data that minds. Includes perception, foresight and the ability to
Unprocessed makes decision making skills, training, common see beyond the horizon.
facts. Set easier and has a meaning, sense, ad experiences
of discrete facts purpose and relevance
about events
Transuded Fusion of data; creation of Placement of information in Desouza (2005)
outputs of the network incorporating its larger context (a necessary
sensors both data and the condition for
relationships among data understanding)

Structured data useful for Obtained from experts based Wisdom is the ability judge Thierauf and
analysis and decision on experience soundly over time Hoctor
making (2006)

The following definitions of data, information, knowledge, wisdom attempt to capture the common essence of
the various definitions presented in the KM literature:



Data are considered to be unprocessed raw representations of reality.
Information is considered to be data that has been processed in some meaningful ways.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 931

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

 Knowledge is considered to be information that has been processed in some meaningful ways.
 Wisdom is considered to be knowledge that has been processed in some meaningful ways.
Egoistic origins of key terms relevant
It seems so that data can be the most basic unit of KM. However, this is still open to argument. There is a
hierarchy among the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. The knowledge hierarchy is usually seen as
a pyramid ascending from data to wisdom. However, Tuomi (1999). suggested reversing that hierarchy on the
basis that data were more important than knowledge, also pointing out that knowledge had to come first in order
to create data. Nissen (2002) proposed a dual approach, making a distinction between knowledge seekers and
knowledge creators. From the seeker point of view, data is put into context to create information, and
information that is actionable becomes knowledge. From the creator perspective, knowledge is needed to create
information, which is in turn needed to create data. Therefore, it seems sensible that a general hierarchy of data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom should permit transition in both directions – a notion supported by
Williams (2006). Figure 5 illustrates the traditional knowledge pyramid.

Figure 5: The traditional knowledge pyramid Figure6: The extended KM pyramid

While doing the literature survey we found that the traditional knowledge pyramid can be extended. Is anything
higher than wisdom? The answer to question found was enlightenment (Faucher, 2008). It is the highest form of
understanding. Therefore, it should be incorporated into a model that supports to represent a complete
perspective on the hierarchy of knowledge. This is illustrated in Figure 6. The above discussion of the extension
of the traditional hierarchy seems to be consistent with the idea yet this diagram of extensions to the traditional
hierarchy does not embrace all the improvements.

4. Definition of KM

There are various concepts, conflicting definitions and overlapping views among the researchers and
practitioners, but central theme is still the same for all of them i.e. managing the knowledge and encouraging
people to share the same to create the value adding products and services (Bhatt, 2001; Chorafas, 1987; and
Malhotra, 1998). KM is the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes
of creating, gathering, organizing, diffusion, use and exploitation. It requires turning personal knowledge into
corporate knowledge that can be widely shared throughout an organization and appropriately applied. There is
no single definition of KM. It has been defined in a number of ways, but in general the thought relates to
unlocking and leveraging the knowledge of individuals so that this knowledge becomes available as an
organizational resource. KM makes knowledge independent from the particular individuals. Different
researchers have used different approach to define KM in their literature. Singh et.al.(2006) classified them with
different theoretical perspectives namely need of KM, What KM demands, KM practices, KM and IT, KM
processes, and Holistic nature of KM. The present study classifies these KM definitions further into objectives
of KM and strategy, KM and Intellectual Capital, and What KM can do. These detail classifications are
presented in Table 2.4.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 932

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Table 5: Definitions of KM

Serial
Definitions of KM Reference
Number
Objectives of KM

1. KM concerns the formalization of and access to experience, knowledge, and expertise that create Beckman
new capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation, and enhance customer (1999)
value
2. KM is achieving organizational goals through the strategy-driven motivation and facilitation of Beijerse (1999)
(knowledge-)workers to develop, enhance and use their capability to interpret data and
information (by using available sources of information, experience, skills, culture, character,
personality, feelings, etc.) through a process of giving meaning to these data and information.

What KM demands

3. Ensuring a complete development and implementation environment designed for use in a specific Chorafas (1987)
function requiring expert systems support.
4. Policies, procedures and technologies employed for operating a continuously updated linked pair DePablos (2002)
of networked databases.
5. KM is the process of capturing a company's collective expertise wherever it resides, and O'Sullivan (2007)
distributing it to wherever it can help produce the biggest payoffs.

KM processes
6. KM is a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution, and application. Bhatt(2001)
7. The process of collecting, organizing, classifying and disseminating information throughout an Albert (1998)
organization, so as to make it purposeful to those who need it.
8. KM is the process of creating, capturing, and using knowledge to enhance organizational Bassi (1997)
performance.

KM and IT
9. Davenport,Long &
KM is managing information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection.
Beers (1999)
10. Mapping knowledge and information resources both on-line and off-line; training, guiding and Maglitta (1995)
equipping users with knowledge access tools; monitoring outside news and information.
11. Understanding the relationships of data; identifying and documenting rules for managing data; Strapko (1990)
and assuring that data are accurate and integrity is maintained.
12. KM incorporates intelligent searching, categorization and accessing of data from disparate Willett & Copeland
databases, E- mail and files. (1998)

13. KM is an approach to adding or creating value by more actively leveraging the know-how, Ruggles (1997)
experience, and judgment resident within and, in many cases, outside of an organization.

What Km can do

14. KM is how an organization identifies, creates captures, acquires, shares, and leverages Rumizen (2002)
knowledge.
15. Stonehous&Pembert
It is the role of KM to ensure that individual learning becomes organizational learning. on(1999)

KM and strategy

16. O'Dell & Grayson

KM as a conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time, and (1997)
helping people to share and put the information into action in ways that strive to improve the
organizational performance.

17. O'Dell & Grayson

KM as a strategy to be developed in a firm to ensure that knowledge reaches the right people at the (1998)
right time, and that those people share and use the information to improve the organizations
functioning.

18. KM is the strategies and methods of identifying, capturing and leveraging knowledge to help a firm O'Dell, Wiig &
compete. Odem(1999)

KM practices

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 933

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

19. KM is the formalization of and access to experience, knowledge, and expertise that create new Beckman(1997)
capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation, and enhance customer value.
20. Bringing tacit knowledge to the surface, consolidating it in usable forms by which it is more widely Birkett (1995)
accessible, and promoting its continuing creation.
21. Mack, Ravin, & Byrd
(2001)
Capturing knowledge and expertise created by knowledge workers as they go about their work and
making it available to a larger community of colleagues. Technology can support these goals, and
knowledge portals serve as a key tool for supporting knowledge work.

Holistic nature of KM

22. Alavi& Leidner

KM refers to a systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing and (1999)
communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may make
use of it to be more effective and productive in their work.

23. Bounfour (2003)

KM as a set of procedures, infrastructures, technical and managerial tools, designed towards
creating, sharing and leveraging information and knowledge within and around organization.

KM and intellectual capital

24. KM is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organization Davenport & Prusak
with a view to furthering the organization’s objectives. (1998)
25. Sveiby (1997)
KM as the art of creating value from an organization's intangible assets.

5. Factors that influence KM

Literature survey shows that, it is agreed that a broad range of factors can influence the success of KM
initiatives, the following factors presented by Holsapple and Joshi (2000) represent this general agreement of the
researchers (SeeFigure7).

Figure7: Factors that influence KM

In a previous study made by Holsapple and Joshi (1999), the factors were organized into three categories

 Managerial influences.

 Resource influences.

 Environmental influences.

6. Knowledge Management Process

We have just seen that KM is complex, heterogeneous area. Our objective will be precisely to review the
different KM process with the aim to understand the different steps involved within it. This study considers a
total seven approaches: Wiig (1993), Meyer & Zack (1996), Mc Elory (1999), Bukowitz & Williams (2003),
Wong & Aspinwall (2004), Lee et.al. (2005) and Dagnfous & Kah (2006). As observed by prior researchers,
most small and large organizations practicing any KM would need to participate in each of these KM processes,
at least to some extent. Overall KM process can be divided into four main processes and these four processes
can be further classified into sub-processes (See Figure 8).

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 934

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)



Knowledge capture and creation.


Knowledge organization and retention.


Knowledge dissemination.
Knowledge utilization.

Figure8: KM Processes
Knowledge capture and creation is a process in which knowledge identification, capture, acquisition, and
creation is done (Rao, 2004). Knowledge organization and retention is a process in which knowledge in tacit
form may be codified in an understandable form to the extent possible (Millar et al., 1997). After doing this
knowledge needs to be categorized, and stored in repositories in a standard format for later use. Knowledge
dissemination is a process which involves knowledge sharing among all within the organization both of tacit and
explicit form. A combination of incentives and a cooperative culture are the main supporting factors of
knowledge dissemination (Morris & Empson, 1998). Knowledge utilization is a process of the application and
use of knowledge in the organization value-adding process (Currie, 2003).

7. Compression and critical analysis of the selected KM processes

Now at this stage we will try to compare and critically explore the different KM processes considered herein.
We have considered nine points system for doing the analysis with an aim to find the strength and shortcomings
of these approaches. These points give us extremely broader view about KM process and it allows us to present
a very general perspective on all the approaches.

Table 6: Critical comparison of the approaches

Serial Points Wigg Mayer& McElory Bukowitz & Wong and Lee Dagnfous
Number 1993 Zack 1999 Williams Aspinwall et.al. and Kah
1996 2003 2004 2005 2006
  
   
1. Create/capture of
knowledge


2. Refinement


3. Validation


4. Codification

   
 
5. Store/Retrieve

  
6. Access


   
7. Distribution


8. Sustain

9. Update 

10. Application   

11. Utilization  

 
12. Disposal

Total Points 4 4 5 6 5 3 5

In the study of these approaches this is very much clear that the success of K.M does not depend on only one
approach, it depend on all. We found that Bukowitz & Williams considered the maximum points which shows
that it is the best approach among all and can be considered as the foundation of KM process. It covers all points
except the points like refinement, validation, updation and application of the knowledge. Bukowitz and
Williams were the first introduces two new critical phrases. The learning of knowledge content and the decision
as to whether to maintain the knowledge or divert the organization of this knowledge content and hence it is

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 935

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

more comprehensive among all. Approach proposed by McElory comes next, getting five points which is also
covering all points. But points like refinement, sustain, updation, disposal and application are not covered by
this approach. Strengths of the Mc Elroy cycle is the clear description of how knowledge is evaluated and a
conscious decision is made as to whether or not it will be integrated into the organizational memory.
Approaches suggested by Wigg, Mayer & Zack focused only on points like knowledge capture, refinement,
store, access and use. These Authors do not describe about the points like validation, sustain update, disposal
and application we believe that these two approaches are the basis for the other two approaches discussed above.
The differences in approaches are because of the time in which these approaches are evolved. Wigg , Mayer &
Zack approaches belong to early ninety’s, so they are covering less points as per the analysis. As more research
work progressed in the field of K.M. the approaches get better and more strengthend, KM process suggested by
Wong & Aspinwall, Lee et.al. and Dagnfous & Kah emphasis more on the application part while all the
remaining basic points remains the same.

8. Knowledge Managements Benefits

At the end it will be injustice if we do not talk on KM benefits. In this knowledge based economy, organizations
increasingly have to deal with issues like products and processes complexity, increased relevant knowledge base
both technical and non-technical, shorter product life cycles, increased focus on the core competencies, etc. KM
can facilitate organizations to encounter various issues related to the emergence of the knowledge-based
economy (Anantatmula & Kanungo, 2006; Beijerse, 1999). The numerous benefits can be achieved through
implementing KM. Many authors have investigated the potential benefits of using KM in the organizations as
per the literature survey (see Table 7).

Table 7: KM benefits

Serial
KM Benefits Reference
Number
1 Best decision making Singh et.al.(2006), Dalkir(2005), Chase (1997)
2 Smoother collaboration Singh et.al.(2006), Dalkir(2005),
3 Enhanced learning Dalkir(2005)
4 Improved communication Chase (1997)
5 Improved employee skill Dalkir(2005), Chase (1997)
6 Increased employee satisfaction Dalkir(2005)
7 New or better way of working Chase (1997)
Davenport(1998), Singh et.al.(2006), Dalkir(2005), Chase
8 Sharing best practices
(1997)
9 Enhanced the continuity of the organization Beijerse(1999)
10 Improved employee loyalty and retention Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006), Beijerse(1999)
Singh et.al.(2006), Anantatmula & and
11 Improved productivity/efficiency
Kanungo(2006),Chase (1997)
12 Increased empowerment of employees Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006)
Singh et.al.(2006), Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006),Chase
13 Increased sales/profits
(1997)
14 Cycle time reduction Singh et.al.(2006), Chase (1997)
15 Develop new business opportunities Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006), KPMG(2000),184
16 Developing core competencies Beijerse(1999)
17 Enhanced flexibility Singh et.al.(2006), Chase (1997)
18 Improved business processes Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006)
19 Faster new product development Beijerse(1999)
20 Improved responsiveness Singh et.al.(2006), Dalkir(2005), Chase (1997)
21 Reduced risk Beijerse(1999)
22 Enhanced customer relation Dalkir(2005),
23 Enhanced products or services quality Chase (1997), Dalkir(2005),
24 Enhanced customer satisfaction Dalkir(2005),
25 Better management of intellectual capital Demarest(1997)
Davenport(1998), Singh et.al.(2006), Dalkir(2005), Chase
26 Increased speed of innovation
(1997)
27 Improved revenues through licensing of patents Singh et.al.(2006), Anantatmula & and Kanungo(2006)
28 Reuse of information and Knowledge Singh et.al.(2006)

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 936

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

9. Conclusions

In present era of globalization, knowledge creation and management has been the key question that has attracted
the interest of the researchers from different areas. Literature review shows that research, both of qualitative and
quantitative nature, have yet not taken the final shape, numerous articles, books have been published on a
theoretical level. This proliferation of study has led to the fact that presently only at the very basic theoretical
level of KM there is clear consensus. This is because KM does not belong to one area; people from different
disciplines are working on it. Approaches to KM process are at still at emerging state and the process is
ongoing, till we get a complete formal approach which shall be universally accepted. The main aim of this study
can be accomplished in threefold: the first is the compilation of diverse fundamentals related to the concept of
knowledge management, which gives idea about the historical background, contribution of different authors &
researchers, fundamentals & concepts, definitions of knowledge and knowledge management. The second aim is
to produce and connect the different perspectives on approaches to knowledge management processes by giving
its conceptual outline and finally doing its critical comparison. Lastly, another relevant contribution of this study
has been focus on the numerous benefits that can be achieved through implementing knowledge management to
deal with issues like products and processes complexity, increased relevant knowledge base both technical and
non-technical, shorter product life cycles, increased focus on the core competencies, etc. We have come to
conclusion that KM is tool which helps to utilize our resources in a smarter and efficient way to achieve higher
business goals in a productive way. Its aim is to develop new opportunities, creating value, obtaining
competitive advantages and improve performance to attain the organizations objectives and emerging needs.

10. References
[1] Ackoff, R.L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9.
[2] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (1999).Knowledge Management systems: Emerging views and practices from the field. In International
Conference on System Sciences, 239.
[3] Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge Management systems: issues, challenges and benefits. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 1 (7).
[4] Albert, S. (1998). Knowledge Management living up to the hype? Midrange Systems, 11(13), 52.
[5] Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., & Hare, V.C. (1991).Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about
knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61( 3 ), 315–343.
[6] Anantatmula, V. and Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the underlying relations among the Knowledge Management outcomes. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 25-42.
[7] Argyris, C. (1993), On Organizational Learning, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
[8] Aune, B. (1970). Rationalism, empiricism, and pragmatism: an introduction. New York: Random House.
[9] Awad, M.A., & Ghaziri. H.M. (2004). Knowledge Management. Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[10] Barton- Leonald, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge - building and sustaining sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business
School press.
[11] Bassi, L.J. (1997). Harnessing the power of intellectual capital. Training and Development, 51(2), 25-30.
[12] Beckman, T. (1999). The current state of Knowledge Management. In Liebowitz, J. (Eds), Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[13] Beckman, T. (1997).Methodology for Knowledge Management..In Harmza, M.H.(Eds), the IASTED International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, ASC ’97, Banff, IASTED ACT Press, 29-32.
[14] Beijerse R.P.U. (1999). Questions in Knowledge Management: defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 3(2), 94-109.
[15] Bell, D. (1978). The Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism. Heinemann, London.
[16] Bender, S. and Fish, A. (2000). The transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: the continuing need for global assignments.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 125-37.
[17] Bhatt, G.D. (2001). Knowledge Management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques and people.
Journal of Knowledge Management 5(1),68–75.
[18] Birkett, B. (1995). Knowledge Management, Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 74(1),14-18.
[19] Bohn, R. E.(1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 26(1),61-73.
[20] Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M. and Turban, E. (2002). Integrating Knowledge Management into enterprise environments for the next
generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33, 163-76.
[21] Bounfour, A. (2003). The Management of Intangibles. The Organisation’s Most Valuable Assets. London: Routledge.
[22] Bukowitz, W., & Williams, R. (2000). The Knowledge Management field book. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
[23] Carneiro, A. (2001). The role of intelligent resources in Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 358-67.
[24] Chase, R. L. (1997). The Knowledge-Based Organization: An International Survey. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1), 38-49.
[25] Chorafas, D.N. (1987). Expert systems at the banker’s reach. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 5(4), 72-81.
[26] Chua, A. (2003).A framework for Knowledge Management implementation. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 2(1),
79-86.
[27] Courtney, J. (2001). Decision making and Knowledge Management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making
paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 17-38.
[28] Currie, W.L. (2003).A knowledge-based risk assessment framework for evaluating web-enabled application outsourcing projects.
International Journal of Project Management,21(3), 207-17.
[29] Daghfous, A. and Kah, M.M.O. (2006). Knowledge Management implementation in SMEs: a framework and a case illustration.
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management,5(2) , 107-15.
[30] Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 937

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

[31] Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C. (1999). Successful Knowledge Management projects. In J. W. Cortada and J. A.
Woods (Eds.), The Knowledge Management yearbook, 1999-2000 ,Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 89-107.
[32] Davenport, T., DeLong, D. and Beers, M. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2),
43-57.
[33] Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
[34] Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., and Beers, M.C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management projects. Sloan Management Review,
39(2), 43-57.
[35] De Pablos, P. O. (2002).Knowledge Management and organizational learning: Typologies of knowledge strategies in the Spanish
manufacturing 1995 to 1999. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 52-55.
[36] Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding Knowledge Management. Journal of Long Range Planning, 30(3), 374-84.
[37] Desouza, K.C. (2005). New Frontiers of Knowledge Management, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[38] Druckes, P. (1964). Knowledge Worker: new target for management. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from
http://drucker.cgu.edu.
[39] Edvineson, L., & Malone, M - (1997). Intellectual capital: realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brain power.
New York, Harper Collins.
[40] Fowler, A. (2000). The role of AI-based technology in support of the Knowledge Management value activity cycle. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 9, 107-28.
[41] Gallup, S.D., Dattero, R., & Hicks, R.C. (2002). Knowledge Management systems: an architecture for active and passive knowledge.
Information Resource Management Journal, 15(1), 22-7.
[42] Goldman, A. (1976). Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 73,771-791.
[43] Grant, R.M. (1997).The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practice. Journal of Long Range Planning,
30 (3), 450-5.
[44] Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, Winter Special Issue, 109-122.
[45] Hasan, H., & Gould, E. (2003). Activity-based Knowledge Management systems. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management,
2(2), 107-15.
[46] Hayek, F. (1945). The uses of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 1-18.
[47] Holsapple, C., & Joshi, K.D. (2002). Knowledge Management: a threefold framework. The Information Society, 18(1),47–64.
[48] Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (1999). Description and analysis of existing Knowledge Management frameworks. Proceedings of the
32 nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui.
[49] Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2000). An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in organizations.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235-61.
[50] Ignizio, J.P. (1991). Introduction to Expert Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[51] Jean-Baptiste P.L. Faucher, (2008). Reconstituting Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 3-16.
[52] Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003).Reviewing the Knowledge Management literature: towards taxonomy. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 75-91.
[53] King, J. (1993), Editorial notes, Information Systems Research, 4(4), 291-8.
[54] Kock, N., and McQueen, R. (1998). Knowledge and information communication in organizations: an analysis of core, support and
improvement process. Knowledge and Process Management, 5(1), 29-40.
[55] KPMG, Knowledge Management Research Report 2000, KPMG Consulting (ed.), Retrieved June 22, 2010 from
www.insite.cz/data/kpmg_Knowledge Management_report2000.pdf.
[56] LanSia, C., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2003). Taxonomy-building tools: an investigative study. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management, 2(2), 63-77.
[57] Lee, K.C., Lee, S. and Kang, I.W. (2005). Knowledge Management : measuring Knowledge Management performance. Information
and Management, 42(3), 469-82.
[58] Levine, P., & Pomerol, J. (1989). Knowledge representation by schemata in financial expert systems. Theory and Decision, 27, 147-
61.
[59] Liao, S. (2003), Knowledge Management technologies and applications – literature review from 1995 to 2002. Expert Systems with
Applications, 25, 155-64.
[60] Liebowitz, J. (2001).Knowledge Management and its links to artificial intelligence. Expert Systems with Applications, 20, 1-6.
[61] Liebowitz. J., & Beckm, T. (1998). Knowledge Organizations: What every manager should know. USA, St. Lucie Press.
[62] Mack, R., Ravin, Y., Byrd, R.J. (2001). Knowledge portals and the emerging digital knowledge workplace. IBM Systems Journal,
40(4),925-955.
[63] Maglitta, J. (1995). Smarten up!. Computer world, 29(23), 84-86.
[64] Maier, R., & Remus, U. (2003). Implementing process-oriented Knowledge Management strategies. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(4), 62-74.
[65] Malhotra, Y. (1998). Deciphering the Knowledge Management type. Journal of Quality and Participation, 21(4), 58-60.
[66] Mayer, M., & Zack, M. (1996). The design and implementation of information Products. Sloan Management Review, 37 (3), 45 - 59.
[67] Mc. Elroy, M. (1999). The knowledge life cycle. Presented at the ICM conference on Knowledge Management. Miami, FL.
[68] Mc Adam, R., & Reid, R. (2001). SME and large organization perceptions of Knowledge Management: comparisons and contrasts.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (3), 231-41.
[69] Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2003). Applying Knowledge Management in higher education: the creation of a learning organization.
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 2(4), 1-7.
[70] Millar, J., Demaid, A. and Quintas, P. (1997). Trans-organizational innovation: a framework for research. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 9(4), 399-418.
[71] Morris, T. and Empson, L. (1998). Organization and expertise: an exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting
and consulting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5/6), 609-24.
[72] Mui, G., & Mc Carthy, W. (1987). FSA: applying AI techniques to the familiarization phase of financial decision making. IEEE
Expert, 2, 33-41.
[73] Nemati, H., et.al. (2002). Knowledge warehouse: an architectural integration of Knowledge Management, decision support, artificial
intelligence and data warehousing. Decision Support Systems, 33, 143-61.
[74] Nickols, F. (2010). The Knowledge in Knowledge Management. Retrieved June 22, 2010 from http://www.jeslen.com/knowledge_in_
Knowledge Management.
[75] Nissen, M.E. (2002). An extended model of knowledge-flow dynamics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
8, 251-66.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 938

 Apurva Anand et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

[76] Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 96-104
[77] Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
[78] Nonaka,I., & Takuchi H. (1995). The knowledge - creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.
New York; Oxford University Press.
[79] Nortan, N., & Keplan, D. (1996). The balanced Scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[80] O'Dell, C. & Grayson, C.J., Jr. (1997). If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
[81] O'Dell, C., Wiig, K., and Odem, P. (1999). Benchmarking Unveils Emerging Knowledge Management Strategies. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 6(3), 202-212.
[82] O'Sullivan, K. J. (2007). Creating and executing an internal communications plan for Knowledge Management systems deployments.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 102-108.
[83] Paraponaris, C. (2003). Third generation R&D and strategies for Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5),
96-106.
[84] Pervan, G., & Ellison, R. (2003). Knowledge Management practices and attitudes of IT departments: do they practise what they
preach? Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 2(1), 15-31.
[85] Plato (369 BC). Theaetetus (Q1aithto6), translated by Benjamin Jowett (1999), Project Gutenberg e text, available at:
www.gutenberg.org/etext/1726.
[86] Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
[87] Quinn, J. (1992). Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge- and Service-Based Paradigm for Industry. The Free Press, New York.
[88] Rajan, A., Lank, E., & Chapple, K. (1999). Good Practices in Knowledge Creation and Exchange. Focus Central, London.
[89] Rao, M. (2004). Review: Knowledge Management: concepts and best practices. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management,
3(2), 123-5.
[90] Rowley, J. (2000). Is higher education ready for Knowledge Management? The International Journal of Educational Management,
14(7), 325-33.
[91] Rubenstein-Montano, B., et.al. (2001). A systems thinking framework for Knowledge Management. Decision Support Systems, 31(1),
5-16.
[92] Ruggles, R. (1997). Knowledge Management Tools, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, MA, USA.
[93] Rumizen, M.C. (2002). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Knowledge Management, CWL Publishing, Madison, WI.
[94] Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
[95] Shankar, R., Singh, M.D., Gupta, A., and Narain, R. (2003).Strategic planning for Knowledge Management implementation in
engineering firms. Work Study, 52(4), 190-200.
[96] Singh, M. D., Shankar, R., Narain, R., and Kumar, A. (2006). Survey of Knowledge Management practices in Indian manufacturing
industries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(6), 110-118.
[97] Stonehouse, G.H., and Pemberton, J.D. (1999). Learning and Knowledge Management in the intelligent organization. Participation &
Empowerment: An International Journal 7(5), 131-144.
[98] Strapko, W. (1990). Knowledge Management. Software Magazine, 10(13), 63-66.
[99] Sveiby, K. (1996). What is Knowledge Management? Retrieved June 6, 2010 from http://www.sveib.com.
[100] Sveiby, K.E.( 1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, Berrett Koehler, San
Francisco, CA.
[101] Thierauf, R. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems for Business, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
[102] Thierauf, R., & Hoctor, J. (2006). Optimal Knowledge Management, Idea Group, Hershey, PA.
[103] Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for Knowledge Management and
organizational memory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (3), 103-17.
[104] Tyndale, P. (2002). A taxonomy of Knowledge Management software tools: origins and applications. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 25, 183-90.
[105] Van der Spek, R. and Spijkervet,(1997). A. Knowledge Management: dealing intelligently with knowledge. In Liebowitz, W. (Ed.),
Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Elements, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[106] Weber, F.,Wunram, M., Kemp, J., Pudlatz, M. and Bredehorst, B. (2002). Standardisation in Knowledge Management – towards a
common Knowledge Management framework in Europe. Proceedings of UNICOM Seminar ‘‘Towards Common Approaches &
Standards in KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT’’, London.
[107] Wiig, K. M. (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking – How People and Organizations Create,
Represent and use Knowledge, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
[108] Willett, S., & Copeland, L. (1998). Knowledge Management key to IBM's enterprise plan. Computer Reseller News 800, 1-6.
[109] Williams, R. (2006). Narratives of knowledge and intelligence . . . beyond the tacit and explicit. Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(4), 81-99.
[110] Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing Knowledge Management in the small business environment. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61.
[111] Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2005), An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME
sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3).

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 2 Feb 2011 939