Journal of Information Technology (2012) 27, 140–155

& 2012 JIT Palgrave Macmillan All rights reserved 0268-3962/12

palgrave-journals.com/jit/

Research article

Knowledge management governance:

the road to continuous benefits realization
Suzanne Zyngier1, Frada Burstein2
1
La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia;
2
Monash University, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence:
S Zyngier, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Dve, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia.
Tel: þ 61 3 94795265;
Fax: þ 61 3 479 5971;
E-mail: s.zyngier@latrobe.edu.au

Abstract
Investment in knowledge management (KM) programmes is often contentious due to the
challenge of meeting the need for continuous and sustainable benefits realization. In KM,
the word ‘sustainable’ describes how programmes of strategies to leverage organizational
knowledge remain productive over time: that they deliver strategic value to the
organization. The focus of this paper falls on the constructs of the governance of KM
and on its leadership, in KM strategy development and implementation, including risk
management, financial controls and transparent evaluation mechanisms for continuous
benefits realization. This paper presents a KM governance model and explores its recent
validation through six case studies of large, distributed, multinational organizations, and
through these introduces the granular constructs of KM governance. Exploration of the
impact of KM governance on developing and implementing KM programmes in each case
study organization demonstrates that there is a clear nexus between strategic KM
governance and benefits realized from those programmes.
Journal of Information Technology (2012) 27, 140–155. doi:10.1057/jit.2011.31;
published online 22 November 2011
Keywords: knowledge management; knowledge management governance; governance; strategic
knowledge management; benefits realization

Introduction
n information-based economies, knowledge is a key ongoing benefits realization (DeLong and Fahey, 2000;

I organizational resource and competitive differentiator

(Grant, 1996; Teece et al., 1997). Thus the management of
organizational knowledge is an imperative for forward-
looking strategic leadership.
Following Alavi and Leidner (2001) and Alavi et al.
(2006), we define KM as the basic processes of creation,
storage/retrieval, transferring/sharing, and applying knowl-
edge to fulfill organizational aims and objectives. Benefits
gained through such strategies are diverse and can include:
improved decision making, support for knowledge retrie-
val, improved communication between staff, improved
information about and for customers; benefits in workflow,
quality and productivity; improvements in innovation and
business opportunities; expansion in organizational and
personal knowledge bases and finally financial outcomes in
volume of sales, profit margin, competitive advantage and
improvements in cash flow (Seeley and Dietrich, 2000;
Davenport, 2005; Alavi et al., 2006). However, many KM
programme implementations are troubled by obstacles to
Chua and Lam, 2005; Kulkarni et al., 2006). Taking a
knowledge-based view of organizations (Grant, 1996; Teece,
1998; Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002; Reus et al., 2009), it
follows that the capacity to effectively utilize the relevant
knowledge of employees to achieve organizational aims and
objectives depends on deliberate ongoing investment in
leveraging organizational knowledge. While funding such
initiatives may continue, their value is frequently questioned
as they fail to realize the expected benefits – the return on
investment (ROI) from KM sought by organizations (Swart
and Kinnie, 2003; Desouza and Raider, 2006; Agrawal and
Zyngier, 2009). Organizations will only continue to invest in
programmes to manage organizational knowledge where
certain long-term strategic ROI is delivered (Murphy and
Simon, 2002; Kelleher and Courtney, 2003; O’Dell and Leavitt,
2004; Desouza and Raider, 2006; Braganza et al., 2007).
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In KM, the word
describes how systems, tools and techniques to leverage
organizational knowledge remain productive over time:
 Knowledge management governance
that they deliver strategic value to the organization
(Zack and Street, 2007); ensure that knowledge resources
are managed effectively and used appropriately (Holsapple
and Joshi, 2000; Husted and Michailova, 2002; Smits and
deMoor, 2004); and control and minimize risks to the KM
strategy so that it can be revised in response to perceived
flaws in its capacity to transfer knowledge effectively
(DeTienne et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2004; Chua and
Lam, 2005). However, there is rarely an established and
systematic mechanism to monitor and demonstrate such
benefits from KM programmes.
Governance is the implementation of authority through a
model that ensures delivery of anticipated or predicted
benefits of a service or process in an authorized and
regulated manner (Karake, 1995; Sambamurthy and Zmud,
1999, 2000; Weill, 2004). Therefore, the governance of KM
can be a transparent instrument for the authorized, strategic
alignment of KM strategy, and for rendering the predicted
benefits from implementing KM tools and tech-
niques. Transparent governance is also linked to organiza-
tional mechanisms, which enable the delivery of KM value to
organizational stakeholders (Braganza and Lambert, 2000).
Earlier research has examined the fit between KM
governance and generic governance structures (Dilnutt,
2002; Smith and McKeen, 2003a; O’Dell and Leavitt, 2004;
Wiig, 2004a; Schroeder and Pauleen, 2005; Onions and
de-Langen, 2006; Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki, 2006; Strong
et al., 2008). However, that work does not provide an
empirical analysis to demonstrate a granular analysis of KM
governance structures or of its practical implications. The
earlier research neither identified the constructs of KM
governance that were applied to the roles and tasks
required, nor described the flow of authority and commu-
nication. Further, no research has been conducted on either
the overall application patterns of KM governance as an
applied management tool to achieve long-term benefits
from implementing KM strategy, or on the constructs of
supporting KM governance structures. These matters,
therefore, are an underdeveloped theoretical area with the
potential for significant implications for practice.
This paper derives from a case study phase of research to
gather in-depth field data subsequent to survey research on
uptake and understandings of KM. This research has
studied how the relationship between KM authority and
organizational mechanisms supported the realization of
continuous and sustainable benefits from KM. This paper
investigates how the constructs of KM governance can
operate at the highest level to overcome obstacles in
developing and implementing KM strategy, and how these
constructs are relevant to the success or failure of KM
programmes in a long term. While other research has
focused on KM processes, tools and techniques (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Tiwana, 2002), this paper focuses on the
nature of leadership in a KM strategy. In particular, it
considers how governance intersects with leadership. This
research capitalizes on theoretical contributions from both
corporate and IT governance literature and reflects on their
relevance to KM strategy development and implementation.
The concept of ‘KM governance’ is explicated and defined
as the collection of explicit and systematic functions and
constructs to ensure the delivery of anticipated or predicted
benefits of KM strategy development and implementation
S Zyngier and F Burstein
141
in an authorized and regulated manner (Zyngier, 2005). The
outcome of KM governance is to transparently ensure the
development of policies to align KM with the strategic aims
of the organization. KM governance controls how, where
and by whom KM policies or principles are developed and
implementation decisions are made. KM governance also
ensures the identification and management of risks in KM
strategy implementation. Therefore, KM governance
defines the tasks and authority for the mode of delegation
of responsibilities, as along with reporting and measure-
ment structures, which ensure benefits are realized from
investment in KM.
In order to study KM governance as a tool for sustainable
KM strategies, the following research proposition was
investigated:
Preposition 1: The formal governance of KM strategy
development and implementation contributes to the
sustainability of strategies to leverage and transfer
knowledge to achieve organizational goals.
This paper presents the constructs that constitute the KM
governance model and relates it to the literature analysis in
other approaches to KM strategy implementation. We also
describe the empirical case study research through which
these constructs were validated.
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section,
the major issues in managing organizational knowledge –
issues of leadership, obstacles to ongoing and sustainable
implementation of strategies – are discussed as part of a
review of the relevant literature. The review supports our
argument for governance as a structural mechanism and a
process for ensuring KM benefits realization and sustain-
ability. As a result, the constructs of KM governance are
derived in relation to the organizational governance, and
the internal roles, tasks and relationships, which lead to
achieving its purpose. The paper provides case study
evidence demonstrating that organizations that fit the
proposed KM governance model have realized effective and
continuous benefits from KM strategies. Whereas those that
fail to apply principles of KM governance may not have
achieved the same results. Finally, the paper summarizes
the research contributions and limitations, and draws out
proposals for future research.
KM strategy
A knowledge-based perspective on the organization clari-
fies an understanding of the role and value of employees’
tacit knowledge in organizational value creation
(Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002). It supports the view that
individuals and groups of individuals contribute to the
knowledge of the organization in its capacity to create new
knowledge: employees become central to the operations
and strategic decision making of the organization rather
than external or alienated forces (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995; Hendriks, 2001; Turvani, 2001; Eisenhardt and
Santos, 2002; Zack and Street, 2007). Others argue that
effective management of explicit and tacit knowledge
increases the effectiveness and profitability of an organiza-
tion (Davenport and Prusak, 2000; R. Davenport, 2005;
Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2006; Sharma et al., 2007).
 Knowledge management governance
142
Such management requires developing, implementing and
maintaining the appropriate organizational structures,
human resource management and technical infrastructures,
to enable access to the required knowledge where it is
needed for effective organizational operation.
There is a broad range of tools and techniques that can
be used in KM (Butler and Murphy, 2007), each meeting
a perceived organizational need (Earl and Scott, 1999;
Amidon and Macnamara, 2003). Organizations put forward
a KM strategy that aims to achieve benefits from better
leveraging its knowledge resources. Regardless of the
specific tools and techniques utilized, KM implementations
continue to be troubled by obstacles and fail to realize
the benefits sought, especially in a long term (Argyris and
Schön, 1996). Failure of KM strategies implementation can
lead to a loss of confidence and reputation, and, as a
result, to a permanent loss of trust in KM practices in an
organization. Strategic planning processes fail when they
are not constructed to understand, internalize and synthe-
size the successes or failures of the strategic process as it is
implemented (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Thus, deliberate KM
strategies must be articulated as processes, structures,
policies and mechanisms that are transparent and coherent,
and which allow systematic review and revision in the light
of obstacles and successes encountered in their implemen-
tation. Recent research confirms these as internal obstacles
to the effective implementation of KM (Barth, 2000;
Braganza and Möllenkramer, 2002; Chua and Lam, 2005;
Riege, 2005; Zack et al., 2006).
KM benefits realization
Strategic initiatives aim to bring advantage to the
organization in a long term. These benefits are usually
defined in a business case and translated into a business
plan. Benefits realization requires that the outputs and
outcomes of a strategy are explicitly and strategically
aligned with organizational aims and objectives, and those
benefits should be defined at the planning stage.
Reported benefits of KM range widely and reflect the
varying needs of organizations across industry sectors.
McElroy (2003), Jennex and Olfman (2004), Ryu et al.
(2005), and Tainio et al. (2001) suggest that KM increases
organizational capacity for enhanced staff learning and
development. Others see KM as a means of stimulating and
supporting process and product innovation, and innovative
client service (Seeley and Dietrich, 2000; Georgopoulos,
2005; Davenport, 2006). Best practice replication, access to
corporate memory, and the reuse of knowledge resources is
a motivation for many organizations (Walsh and Ungson,
1991; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Spender, 1996; DeTienne
et al., 2004; Oshri et al., 2008). Some see benefits derived
from breaking down or straddling departmental silos
(McDermott and O’Dell, 2000; Wenger et al., 2002; Swart
and Kinnie, 2003; Spender, 2006). The deficit in this recital
of organizational KM benefits is that these are usually
described as desirable outcomes rather than as an explicit
intention in the planning process. Critical success in
systematic and regular realization of these benefits remains
elusive.
S Zyngier and F Burstein
KM strategy leadership and its role in organizational strategy
A KM leader develops and implements KM strategy,
manages knowledge resources and is equipped with skills
that enable and empower knowledge sharing activities
(Amidon and Macnamara, 2003; DeTienne et al., 2004;
Lakshman, 2007; Zhang and Faerman, 2007). A KM leader
investigates need, and strategically aligns planning and
execution of activities to realize the organization’s value
proposition and mission. The need for KM leadership has
been identified as one of the critical success factors of KM
programmes (Zyngier and Burstein, 2004; Heisig, 2009). It
has been suggested that, as part of the business strategy,
KM leaders should propose and lead the KM strategy
implementation which aims to deliver a planned process of
identifying, acquiring, developing, sharing, distributing and
using knowledge (Holsapple and Joshi, 2000, 2002; Amidon
and Macnamara, 2003; Lakshman, 2007; Burstein et al.,
2010). The strategy development process is informed by
the nature of the work, organizational knowledge needs,
available knowledge resources in people and artefacts,
available KM tools and techniques, the environment, and
the organizational culture (Kemp et al., 2002; Burstein
et al., 2010).
Practitioner evidence suggests that knowledge managers
sometimes find themselves isolated, are the sole champions
of a KM strategy, and are victims of competing forces
between IT/IS departments, HR departments and Informa-
tion Management departments, each of which claim the KM
mantle (Zyngier, 2002; Chua and Lam, 2005). At the same
time, leadership is an essential element of an organizational
model implementing a KM strategy. In most KM initiatives,
employment of organizational leaders is time-bound.
Individual successes may be linked to the energy and
charismatic personality of a leader (Lakshman, 2007).
Evidence suggests that if a KM initiative is implemented
as a ‘one-off’ project, then employees may revert to prior
knowledge transfer behaviours that do not necessarily
support organizational knowledge needs (Schroeder and
Pauleen, 2005, 2007).
Common KM leadership responsibilities reflect
Mintzberg’s (1994) classical view of the manager as a
figurehead, disseminator of information, spokesperson and
decision maker (Peterson, 2004). However, management
techniques alone fail to provide appropriate mechanisms to
ensure systematic benefits realization from KM. The
problem does not lie with the roles of the individuals who
lead the KM strategy. We therefore propose that:
Preposition 2: There may be a deficit in those organiza-
tions that lack executive level KM governance mechanism
to create policies, exercise authority over KM, manage
KM risks, and evaluate and review KM strategy
implementation outcomes to ensure their long term
sustainability
KM strategy and its governance
Governance is an ongoing mechanism to authorize,
moderate and improve practice in order to realize strategic
benefits (Weill, 2004). Use of the term ‘governance’ varies.
In this paper we refer to governance of business processes
with IT as the most visible form. Comparing IT governance
 Knowledge management governance
and IT management, Peterson (2004) argues that there is
clear distinction between the two in that IT management
relates to the ‘efficient and effective supply of IT services
and products, and the management of IT operations,
[whereas] IT governance faces the dual demand of both
contributing to present business operations and perfor-
mance, and transforming and positioning IT for meeting
future business challenges’ (p. 37). IT governance is the
centre of decision-making authority, an executive model to
deliver the expected benefits of an IT or IS strategy
(Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999; Hirschheim and Schwarz,
2003; VanGrembergen et al., 2004; Weill, 2004; Weill and
Ross, 2004). However, IT governance is differentiated from
KM in that the management of knowledge requires the
analysis of people, processes and technology.
In applying the same principles to the management of
knowledge, this research seeks to define decision-making
rights and responsibilities, align strategy, risk management,
performance evaluation and measurement in accord with
business needs to deliver financial value or similar expected
benefits.
Linked to the strategic goals, the mission and the values
of the organization, then the KM strategy must support the
work and transfer of knowledge in the organization. This
should be reflected in the policies that underpin KM
strategy development and implementation. It is the role of
governance to establish policies for this purpose. Following
what is learned from corporate and IT governance, it can
be suggested that authority, financial accountability, risk
management, measurement and evaluation, and benefits
realization need to be the aspects of KM governance.
Prior research into KM governance
Wiig (1997) appears to be the first to use the term
‘governance’ in relation to KM, suggesting governance
functions as a mechanism to monitor and facilitate
knowledge-related activities in organizations. However,
Wiig (1997) did not specify the constructs for KM
governance implementation, or provide any supporting
empirical evidence. There is some evidence of research into
KM governance that looks at the configuration of those
governance structures (Dilnutt, 2002; Smith and McKeen,
2003b; Frost and Morner, 2004; Mahnke and Pedersen,
2004; O’Dell and Leavitt, 2004; Wiig, 2004b; Schroeder, 2005;
Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki, 2006). Ciborra and Andreu (2001)
refer to knowledge governance; however, this terminology
is interchangeably used with KM to describe the construc-
tion, development and management of the strategy.
However, none of these authors include detailed research
linking any theoretical attributes of governance of KM in
the roles and tasks required of it, nor of the flow of
authority and communication within it.
Much research mention the importance of strategic
issues of measurement (Bose, 2004; Smits and deMoor,
2004; Lavergne and Earl, 2006; Mehta et al., 2007; Yu et al.,
2009) and others analyse the appropriateness of organiza-
tional governance and its relationship to knowledge (Foss,
2007; Foss et al., 2010). In those studies the underlying
theme has been leadership and the importance of knowl-
edge to the organization as a whole, and how corporate
governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes.
S Zyngier and F Burstein
143
A recent study links KM governance to success (Kannabiran
and Pandyan, 2010), although there is little indication of
detailed research furthering theoretical attributes and
constructs of KM governance as described and defined by
Zyngier (2005). Therefore we find that no existing theory
provides the answer as to whether governance is a means of
achieving sustainability of a strategy to leverage organiza-
tional knowledge. As such, theory testing is not possible
and we find that the constructs and the theory must be
developed. This paper links the constructs of KM govern-
ance to the roles and tasks involved, and to the flow of
authority and communication within KM governance to the
realization of benefits from KM.
KM governance is compatible with a knowledge-based
view of the organization within a knowledge-centred, value-
based, network economy (Menkhoff et al., 2005; Braganza
et al., 2007; Foss, 2007; Heisig, 2009). KM governance
confirms, through development of KM policies, the
alignment of KM with the value proposition and strategy
of the organization. KM governance assumes setting up
explicit and transparent access conditions to organizational
knowledge: quality and maintenance procedures; decision-
making processes; and means for resolving KM obstacles.
KM governance holds authority and is the mechanism that
delegates authority and consequential responsibility. It is
an executive model for delivering, in a controlled manner,
the expected benefits of strategy implementation. Authority
is the power or right to give orders, to make decisions, and
to enforce these; whereas responsibility is the obligation
to do to produce expected outcomes as part of one’s job
or role and be answerable for those outcomes (Little et al.,
1973). Hence KM governance is also concerned with
authority and its delegation.
In the next sections the constructs and responsibilities of
KM governance are defined and described in detail,
together with the processes and tasks involved to oper-
ationalize KM.
KM governance: an examination of constructs
The development of an understanding of the constructs of
KM governance draws on prior research that identifies
authority, policy development, risk management, measure-
ment and evaluation, and financial accountability as issues
to be addressed (Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999; Hirschheim
and Schwarz, 2003; Peterson, 2004; VanGrembergen et al.,
2004; Weill, 2004; Weill and Ross, 2004).
KM governance assumes an effective understanding of
the role and the potential of KM within the organization,
and the alignment of KM with the value proposition
and organizational strategy. KM governance establishes
the decision-making authority, and an executive model to
realize benefits of the strategy (Zyngier, 2005). It enables
the delegation of authority for KM planning, KM strategy
development, and KM strategy implementation. Through
establishing checks and balances, this authority is respon-
sible for knowledge-based benefits realization in the mode
of service delivery. Moreover, the associated executive
model ensures that evaluation feeds back into the KM
strategy implementation review and that all stakeholders’
knowledge needs and expectations are sufficiently met. This
authority can then establish risk management processes to
 Knowledge management governance
144
be conducted in a controlled manner through service
delivery.
This view of governance falls within an organization or
user-centred (problem-finding) view where the problem
area is organizationally and therefore contextually specific.
Policy development is a construct of KM governance are
statement of principles and guidelines that set KM
objectives the organization wants to achieve. Policy guides
decision making, direction and specifies requires outcomes
(Weill, 2004; Weill and Ross, 2004). Therefore, KM policy
strategically aligns KM processes and business processes
and can be a basis for assigning responsibilities for KM
strategy development and implementation. Measurement of
success or otherwise in achieving those objectives can
therefore be measured. Policy can be reviewed and revised
in accordance with measurement and evaluation, as
internal and external environments change, and for the
management of risk.
Management of the risk and obstacles to effective KM
have been well described and the need for risk management
in KM is generally acknowledged (Probst et al., 2000;
O’Dell and Leavitt, 2004; Chua and Lam, 2005; Lakshman,
2007). Proper consideration of knowledge issues associated
with these risks and their management or resolution
acts to strengthen strategies to manage knowledge within
the organization. KM governance ensures management
of both cultural and structural risks associated with KM
as they arise during both initiation and ongoing imple-
mentation of the KM strategy (Jennex and Zyngier, 2007;
Zyngier, 2008).
A major risk to the development and implementation of
KM strategies continues to be sustainable fiscal viability.
This relates the level of financial support for developing
and implementing the KM strategy to the value realized by
the organization as a result of strategy implementation.
Based on prior empirical research, financial accountability
is recognized as a challenge to KM (Chua and Lam, 2005;
Zyngier, 2007). Financial accountability forms part of
managing KM risk, and is a construct of KM governance.
KM governance implies and demands explicit measure-
ment criteria. Thus, KM governance processes incorporate
evaluation and measurement mechanisms in order to assess
the incremental value or otherwise from KM strategy
implementation, and to facilitate review existing practices
in the light of outcomes achieved. Anantatmula and
Kanungo (2006) surveyed and confirm a number of criteria
that have been used to establish the value and ROI for KM
strategies: These include human capital growth (Liebowitz
and Suen, 2000; DiVanna and Rogers, 2005); Spender
(Spender and Tsoukas, 2006), Sveiby (Sveiby, 1998), the
Edvinnson and Malone (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997)
measure intellectual assets; Kaplan and Norton (Kaplan and
Norton, 2001) use the Balanced Scorecard with a number
of measures including financial, growth, customers and
internal business processes. Probst et al. (2000) suggest
looking at the strategy’s normative, operational and
strategic goals to see if they are being met. Other common
techniques include simple staff retention measures and
improved quantity and quality of ‘product to market’
delivery (Vanthournout, 2006). All such measures should
be carefully assessed and selected for their appropriateness
to the KM policy, and based on specific organizational
S Zyngier and F Burstein
needs and context. In all cases, such measures are expected
to form a part of KM governance.
Evaluation looks at both successes of, and obstacles to,
implementing a strategy (DeLong and Fahey, 2000; Chua
and Lam, 2005; Zyngier, 2007). Evaluation of obstacles to
the KM strategy implies the capacity to question why the
risk may not have been foreseen, and therefore managed
using an alternative method. KM governance presents
transparent and consistent measures of KM outcomes and
outputs against criteria established as part of strategy
implementation. Evaluation and measurement facilitates
the regular review, approval and monitoring of ROI from
KM, each of which is central to ensuring systematic benefits
realization.
The KM governance model: synthesis
From a meta-review of methodologies and frameworks
intended to aid the sustainable implementation of a KM
strategy in an organization, representative research was
selected to gain a general overview of the field. Among
others, we analysed the seminal work of Holsapple and
Joshi (2002), the European Committee for Standardization
of the European Union (2004) who synthesized 10 such
frameworks and the investigations of 113 individual KM
researchers and Heisig (2009) who examined 160 frame-
works. We found that none of these frameworks explicitly
describes KM governance as a structural mechanism for
authorizing activity to achieve a strategic alignment
through policy, for delegating authority, or for managing
risks to a sustainable KM programme. In addition, none of
these approaches explicitly spells out the constructs of the
concept of ‘management’ in relation to knowledge. Nor do
they define the roles for the leaders as part of a governance
mechanism. In particular, they omit the need for systematic
policy development, risk management, and revision and
evaluation of strategy implementation. However, as argued
earlier, based on comprehensive literature analysis, this is
essential for long-term benefits realization.
The earlier empirical research, and recent analytical
examination, has led to the development of a KM
governance model for KM strategy implementation that
fills the aforementioned gaps (Zyngier et al., 2006; Jennex
and Zyngier, 2007). This research has developed constructs
that form the KM governance model depicted in Figure 1.
This figure indicates how a KM governance environ-
ment can support the development and implementation
of a sustainable KM strategy in all its levels to realize
strategically aligned benefits. Governance impacts at the
levels of documentation, systems and processes; however,
this paper develops the theoretical premise of KM
governance rather than looking only at specific systems
levels. The shaded area indicates main area of this research
focus.
The model reflects three fundamental objectives for KM
sustainability:
 strategic value to the organization (Zack and Street,
2007);
 knowledge resources are managed effectively and used
appropriately (Holsapple and Joshi, 2000; Husted and
Michailova, 2002; Smits and deMoor, 2004); and
 Knowledge management governance S Zyngier and F Burstein
145

Organizational
Governance

K1 K3

KM Governance entity – 6 Dimensions

ultimate authority for KM; setspolicy;
over views management of risk; has
financial fiduciary duty; evaluates and
reviews strategy, delegates authority.
K2 K5

KM Program development
Environment
Governance

develops KM strategy:
selects techniques, tools &
establishes and monitors
evaluation
KM

K4 K7

KM Program
Implementation
implements tools &
techniques and collects
evaluation data

K6

KEY
Authority source Reporting to:
K1. Organizational governance:Sets strategic direction,
requires alignment of business strategy;knowledge
management governance evident in KM authority entity

K2. KM Governance authority entity: delegate K3. KM Governance authority - reports to

organizational governance on KM strategic
authority for KM System development
alignment and effectiveness
K5. KM Strategy development entity reports to KM
K4. KM program development entity: delegates Governance authority on strategy outcomes
authority for KM Implementation including conformity to policy, risks & expenditure
K7. KM Implementation entity - reports to KM
K6. KM Implementation entity actions KM program strategy development body on: strategies
implementation, obstacles, and on evaluation data

Figure 1 Model of KM governance.

 risks to the KM strategy are controlled and minimized
(DeTienne et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2004; Chua and Lam,
2005).
The KM governance model synthesizes these objectives.
These are shown on the model and in the key to Figure 1 as
follows:
1. The KM governance body or function establishes KM
policies which align with the aims and objectives of the
organization. These policies define the delegation of
authority and accountability for KM activities, manage
the risks, and evaluate the implementation of the
strategy, according to the outputs or other value-added
benefits as measured against criteria established as part
of the policies’ objectives.
2. The interaction between KM strategy development
and KM governance is twofold. Firstly, the gover-
nance process develops the principles and rationale
for the impetus of the strategy, the management
of risks, financial duty of care and control, and
accountability for stakeholder response. Internal stake-
holders includes several areas including IT, orga-
nizational behaviour, economics and organizational
strategy, Human Resources and Information Manage-
ment departments, and other user groups that are
engaged in knowledge-based practice (Arnott and
Pervan, 2005). Secondly, the governance process pro-
vides mechanisms to evaluate KM activity according
to defined and articulated performance measures
as directed by internal and external stakeholder
expectations.
3. KM strategy implementation follows a course of action
that is determined by the plan in order to support the
aims and objectives of the organization as a whole. The
KM strategy is normally implemented by specialized KM
staff, or those performing the roles as required and
 Knowledge management governance
146
defined by KM governance. KM governance should be
supported and promoted by ‘champions’ in the organi-
zation. Evaluation data are generated by the staff
responsible for KM strategy development and imple-
mentation. The data are supplied to the governance
body that then ensures its respective decisions are
considered in the subsequent review and refinement of
the strategy.
Therefore, a KM governance model provides for the
management of risk, review mechanisms, and fiscal
accountability in leveraging tacit knowledge and sharing
explicit knowledge within an organization.
Specifically this research validates KM governance as the
means to continuous and sustainable benefits realization of
KM to leverage organizational knowledge by delivering
strategic value to the organization over time. The focus
therefore falls on the constructs of KM governance and its
relationships indicated by the shaded section of the KM
governance model in Figure 1. For completeness, the model
also includes KM programme implementation.
Model validation: constructs of KM governance
In order to validate the KM governance model the
authors conducted empirical field work and looked for
the following constructs of KM governance in the case
study organizations:
Construct 1. The exercise of authority at the appro-
priate level of seniority to ensure strategic
alignment. This implies a relationship
with organizational governance.
Construct 2. Development of dynamic organizational
policies to support appropriate KM pro-
cess.
Construct 3. Management of the risks and obstacles to
KM.
Construct 4. Evaluation according to outputs or value
added as measured against criteria estab-
lished in policy.
Construct 5. Delegation of authority and accountability
for KM activities in an explicit and
transparent way.
Construct 6. Financial accountability for KM activities
These constructs provide the basis for empirical validation
of the proposed KM governance model as described in the
following sections.
Research design
A case study research method was used to test the validity
of the KM governance model (Cavaye, 1996; Darke et al.,
1998). Six organizations were selected from the lists of
winners in the Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises Study
(MAKE: see http://www.knowledgebusiness.com/), by re-
ferral from other KM professionals, and through the
examination of those organizations’ websites. By purpose-
fully locating organizations that were considered successful
with KM it was speculated that they might have had
governance structures in place to support their success.
The criteria for case site selection were that the sites: be
large, multi-sited organizations with over 2000 employees;
S Zyngier and F Burstein
be without independent subsidiaries; hold a reputation as
knowledge intensive; and hold a reputation for excellence
in KM. Table 1 presents an overview of the six case study
sites.
In each organization the study sample sought to include
those actively involved in the leadership of KM strategy
development, users of the KM strategy and those imple-
menting the strategy as stakeholders. The case study used
the constructs presented above to guide data collection and
analysis – a technique often used in an environment where
theoretical constructs are unclear or not well developed
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). The
focus of investigation was: the organizational philosophy of
KM; the history and implementation of the KM strategy;
the process and allocation of authority for KM; and the
organizational structures that supported and governed the
KM initiative.
Data collection and analysis
Collection and analysis of interview data took place
between 2003 and 2007 in the UK, the USA and Australia
(see Appendix A for details of interview subjects, locations
and schedule). Data collection included semi-structured
interviews, observation, and collection of secondary data in
the form of available documentary evidence from the
organizations themselves plus additional publicly available
materials (Stake, 1995; Myers, 1997; Altheide and Johnson,
1998). In each case, the informants gave semi-structured,
in-depth interviews, each lasting approximately one hour.
These interviews were tape-recorded, supplementary notes
were taken, and additional organizational documentary
material was collected for analysis. The recorded interviews
were transcribed and submitted to the interviewees for their
comment, thus establishing the defensibility of that data
and that of comparison cases through ‘replication logic’
(Benbasat et al., 1987; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
The researchers analysed interview transcripts and
organizational documents including annual reports, min-
utes of the KM strategy meetings, and organizational charts.
Transcribed interviews were imported into QSR software, a
thematic analysis software tool. This provided a systematic
way to store and analyse data obtained through interviews,
develop nodes, compare nodes, provided an avenue for
independent inspection of data to increase validity, while
providing the researcher with the ability to store extraneous
material obtained through the literature or analysis of
organizational documents (Creswell, 2009). The analysis
first looked for broad themes within derived KM govern-
ance constructs, then developed axial analysis of those
themes looking for granularity that would further develop
or illuminate organizational KM activity along the specified
constructs (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Myers, 1997;
Punch, 2005). The data were coded for meaning using
descriptors from extant KM literature and from the
constructs of KM governance model. Descriptors were
clustered to develop themes (Punch, 2005).
Cross-case analysis established evidence of the KM
governance constructs and indicators of associated
benefits realization (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007). The informants explicitly stated what
activities were introduced as part of the KM strategy
 Knowledge management governance S Zyngier and F Burstein
147

Table 1 Table of cases

Context Mission Staff Structure Motivation for Years KM

KM governance
Case 1 Case 1 is an To ensure the Employs Across multiple To innovate and 3
autonomous expert, approximately sites in Australia share knowledge
R&D operating independent and 2100 people, 75% to reduce
concern within a innovative of whom are duplication and
government application of research active for reuse
department science and plus support
technology in the staff
national interest

Case 2 A proprietary To be the best Employs 54,000 Across multiple To share 1.5
limited company confectionary people sites globally knowledge
with a global and beverages across continents
manufacturing manufacturer and product
and distribution and supplier lines – all sectors
presence

Case 3 A proprietary To increase in Employs 53,000 Across multiple To create a set of 3

limited company size and in people sites globally processes to
with a global profitability by capture and to
manufacturing excelling in the manage
and distribution devt., knowledge
presence manufacture and resources
distribution of globally
aircraft

Case 4 Multinational To work with Employs 3000 Across 59 offices To leverage and 4
mangement- leading people globally. Each maximize human
consulting organizations to office is a self- intellectual
partnership improve their sufficient, capital as the
ranked in the performance by reporting to the most important
international top stimulating partners resource
6. Owned and innovative ideas
managed by the
partners

Case 5 A publicly listed To increase in Employs more Across multiple To address 2

multinational size and in than 3000 sites globally growing skills
oil and gas profitability and people shortage,
exploration and to deliver diminishing
production generous resources,
company ongoing returns greater
Operates solely & to shareholders mechanization of
in joint ventures processes &
increasing OH&S
risks

Case 6 Global group, it To retain Employs 35,400 Across 50 Knowledge is 0

is a developer, competitive edge people countries managed for
manufacturer & and deliver value reuse as a
supplier of to shareholders process
engines through both improvement
aerospace, and strategic and and risk
marine & energy financial management
markets planning, and scheme
the management
of risk
 Knowledge management governance
148
implementation that led them to achieve benefits
realization. These activities mapped clearly to the con-
structs of the KM governance model and to validate it.
Examples of such statements and mapping are given in
Appendix B.
The interview questions (see Appendix C) addressed
authority, risk management, financial accountability and
policy development. A number of other issues emerged –
for example, interrelationships of authority and reporting
were revealed. The researchers were able to distinguish
between the roles assigned within KM governance, KM
strategy development and KM initiative implementation
tasks. These tasks were clearly defined and expected
outcomes were well understood, and were described in
sufficient depth by informants to serve as evidence that
supported the proposed model.
In the following sections we present analysis of the
findings to show the links between the KM governance
model, and systematic KM strategy benefits realization in
the case studies.
Discussion
Table 2 summarizes the empirical results in relation to the
constructs of KM governance as identified in the section
KM governance: an examination of constructs above of this
paper. In five of the six cases analysed, there was a KM
governance body that effectively represented the interests
of all stakeholders and which appeared to generate
organizational engagement with those KM programmes,
thus responding to the knowledge needs of the organiza-
tion, staff and management. Most have a federal or
centralized form of governance that is often linked to
corporate governance. It was found that these bodies were
responsible for authorizing activities that supported KM
strategy development and implementation. The KM strate-
gies were formally recognized and accepted across each
organization. The representation of stakeholders on gov-
ernance bodies empowered KM activity across geographic
boundaries in multi-sited organizations. Risks were ex-
plicitly addressed, as was financial accountability.
As predicted by the proposed model, KM governance
body actions were responsible for evaluating and revising
strategies, and for ensuring adjustment and realignment of
strategies and tools according to the successes and failures
of their initiatives. Specifically, KM governance body
activity was driven by the aims and objectives of the
organization, based on clearly defined evaluation criteria.
As an example, the KM governance process was
described in Case 2 as follows: These guys then approve
y they’re the authorities, so we say this is what we want
to do, this is why and this is the value that we believe that
we will get out of it. Once these guys [the Steering Group]
have approved it, the implementation people actually
physically go and do it. I mean obviously there’s involve-
ment from [the Strategic Design Team] but the leg work is
actually happening here [at the implementation level]
(Informant 1, Case2).
It was further found that strategic alignment was
transparent through the KM governance process, an
example was described in Case 1 as follows: basically [we]
had financial, client and people plans but in order to
S Zyngier and F Burstein
actually deliver on our mission we needed to get the IMKM
policy out (Informant 1, Case 1). In contrast the informant
in Case 4 was highly specific in that We identified
some core issues, we identified a number of goals that KM
should contribute or help to provide some value ... a policy
for KM. It was improving risks ... we are working in the oil
and gas industry has an inherent risk and KM should
improve the management of these risks. We would create
those business processes and we would create communities
of practice to collaborate and share that business process
and that in turn will improve the management of risks
(Informant 1, Case 4). These two respondent statements
above clearly underline the impact of strategic alignment
and integration of specific but very different aims and
objectives.
We refer to the model and in the key to Figure 1, and to
the six constructs of KM governance model. Table 2
summarizes the KM governance elements in each case.
In contrast there is no formal or informal governance
of the KM strategy in Case 6, it was acknowledged that the
KM team or community have no authority (Informant 1,
Case 6). Some of the members of the KM community are at
director level but have no authority for KM.
The informant suggested that this voluntary character of
KM was one reason the strategy had been successful. The
informant also suggested that not having governance from
the top is a benefit because I have spoken to people from a
number of companies. They’ve had a top-down corporate
KM program and they’ve died a death after a year or so
(Informant 1, Case 6). This statement is at odds with case
study evidence of corporate KM programmes that stress the
importance of high level leadership, and the findings from
other researchers about the KM programmes initiated by
CEOs and appointed CKOs (Davenport et al., 1998; Collison
and Parcell, 2003; Chua and Lam, 2005).
An ironic post script to Case 6 is that shortly after that
data were collected the KM leader left to set up a KM
consultancy. A second informant from the organization
subsequently advised that two years later a governance
mechanism had been set up and that the KM emphasis had
changed from attempt at knowledge capture to knowledge
sharing for best practice and innovation. In particular, we’ve
evolved into a more focused group which is smaller, ywith
representatives from global areas, different parts of the global
company based on a formal basis to review progress
and interpretation issues and knowledge management ythe
objectives and goals are set at a very high level (Informant 1,
Case 6). Thus governance was developed in an effort to set
meaningful direction for KM at a strategic level.
In the next section we present more specific analysis of
KM governance structures, illustrated by ‘voices’ from
some of the informants.
KM governance structures
Focussing on the cases that demonstrate sustainable KM
initiatives, it is noteworthy that all organizations had a
centralized KM governance authority. In five of the six
cases, governance was implemented by a cohesive group of
stakeholders. Reasons for the stakeholder approach to the
distribution of accountability were described by Informant
1, Case 1 – we were sitting down trying work out who should
 Knowledge management governance S Zyngier and F Burstein
149

Table 2 Summary of KM governance constructs in case findings

Responsible to Governance Governance Oversight Financial Measurement

organizational mechanism type based policy of risk accountability through
governance – – constructs 1 development, management – – construct 6 governance –
constructs 1 and 5 and 5 goal setting, constructs 2, construct 4
strategic 3 and 4
alignment –
construct 2
Case 1 Explicit link Federal: Key Yes Yes Yes Yes
stakeholders

Case 2 No explicit link Federal: Key Yes Yes Yes Yes

stakeholders

Case 3 Explicit link Federal: Key Yes No Yes Yes

stakeholders

Case 4 Explicit link Partnership, Yes Yes No Yes

Federal –
delegated to KM
partner

Case 5 No explicit link Federal: Key Yes Yes Yes Yes

stakeholders

Case 6 No link None None None None None

Table 3 Structure of knowledge management governance

Knowledge management governance structure

Case 1 Mechanism exists – centralized
Case 2 Mechanism exists – centralized
Case 3 Mechanism exists – centralized
Case 4 Mechanism exists – centralized
Case 5 Mechanism exists – centralized
Case 6 Individual KM managers, no authority

be on the information governance board and how should we
sort of split it up because I like to split things up so I know
who to blame for various things, you know, go away and do
it – clear governance and accountability. [It was] suggested
ywhy don’t we look at getting these business processes
architects as the key members of the Information Govern-
ance Board.
This approach was found to be a common occurrence
with the exception of Case 4, a professional services
partnership. The ownership structure in a partnership
reflected a different approach in terms of governance at the
level of who has the ‘say’. Because we are a partnership we
report to the partners. When you want to tweak the strategy
you take [that idea] to the Practice area leader. [On
financial matters] we report to the CFO, he’s on the ball on
anything regarding our investment (Informant 1, Case 4).
This reflects both the matrixed nature of authority and its
delegated sources within this organization. Table 3 displays
the overwhelmingly centralized nature of KM governance in
each of the five organizations that have evidence of
sustainable and successful programmes to leverage organi-
zational knowledge. Of note is the limited authority
environment presented by Case 6 at the time.
In all other cases, the constructs of governance were
found to include: authorization of activity; policy develop-
ment for strategic goal setting; risk management; financial
duty of care and control; measurement; and the review and
revision of policy. The purpose and policy of KM strategy
was defined by a governance body and aligned with the
aims and objectives of the company. These are defined in
each company’s KM policies. Policy makes transparent the
goal of the whole program (Informant 1, Case 5) and shapes
the KM strategy. Setting policy includes establishing a
context for evaluating strategy delivery. Defining KM
transparently contextualizes KM strategy development
and delivery and thus makes evaluation possible. It creates
a level of certainty about the establishment of KM strategy
and maintains clear expectations of staff.
There may be a link between the size and distributed
nature of these case organizations in their tendency to
 Knowledge management governance S Zyngier and F Burstein
150

Table 4 Specific benefits realized and linked by respondents to specified elements of governance

KM Authority Policy – goal setting Risk Management incl. Evaluation Mode of delegation of
Financial authority
Case 1 Increased Cross silo Increased knowledge Developing Recognition of KM
engagement opportunities sharing process team
emergent

Case 2 Enhanced staff Stimulation of Aggregation of Control of Ownership of the

development innovation corporate memory knowledge loss knowledge issue at a
global level

Case 3 New buy-in from KM is recognized Supports staff Encourages Recognition of KM

organization as a across organization learning process and team
whole product
innovation

Case 4 Enhanced staff Support for Minimization of Reuse of KM viewed as

development innovative client knowledge loss and knowledge contributing to
service consequential cost resources sustainability of the
savings organization

Case 5 New identification Increased speed of Improved knowledge Unification of Recognition of KM

and support for attaining transfer across organization team
uniform business competence for new divisions and
processes and current functions
employees

Case 6 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

centralize KM governance mechanisms. However, organi-
zations of such size could also allow greater degrees of
independence between sites. We speculate that the greater
level of coordination between sites may be one of the key
factors in the long-term sustainability of KM in these
organizations.
Operational benefits realized through KM governance
In each case the informants explicitly linked the exercise of
governance and authority over the KM strategy to the
realization of operational benefits from that strategy
development and implementation. The benefits realization
varied across all cases. However, informants reported that
governance supported the benefits realized by their
organization through the effective implementation of KM
(see Table 4 for details).
The knowledge needs of those organizations were clearly
expressed as principles by which KM strategy was
developed and implemented. The benefits realized were
strategically aligned with the aims and objectives of the
organization. Benefits across all cases included those found
in the KM literature as described in Section ‘Knowledge
management benefits realization’. Some others not repre-
sented in the literature were also evident – for example: KM
encourages process and product innovation rather than
merely supporting it; KM is viewed as contributing to the
sustainability of the firm; there is increased speed of
attaining competence for new and current employees; and
perceived greater unification of the organization is
attributed to KM. An additional claim within the cases
examined was the more active use of technology (data-
bases) as explicit knowledge resources. These were
described in Case 5 as areas for potential growth – growth
in [CoP] membership, the growth in [bulletin board]
postings, the growth in [the number of intranet] views, that
sort of thing (Case 5, Informant 1).
As can be seen from such measures, the outcomes are not
always linked to precise measures of the effectiveness of
knowledge sharing and knowledge reuse. However, the
informants clearly indicated that these measures consti-
tuted evidence of KM impact on improving ROI from
knowledge transfer, and ultimately, its impact on improv-
ing business outcomes. Informants noted the following
specific measures:
 Implementation of a Balanced Scorecard approach
(Informant 2, Case 1);
 Things like speed to market, reduction of inventory
(Informant, Case 2);
 Cost savings (Informant 1, Case 3); and
 Uniform business processes (Informant, Case 4).
The claim on business process from Case 5 was ‘the
highlight of the value add that we did. It’s actually getting
people to collaborate to agree on a common business
process. It’s a great achievement and it’s felt throughout the
whole organization’ (Informant 1, Case 5). In Case 5, KM
contributed to the sustainability of the organization in a
competitive economic environment where the requirement
was ‘rapid access to our best thinking available to the people
who need it, when they need it’ (Informant 1, Case 5).
 Knowledge management governance
This provides clear evidence of the impact of KM
governance on improving ROI on business processes. Case
6 was the exception. At the time of data collection the
realization of benefits was limited. Further, the funding and
staffing continuity of the programme was annually
reviewed at a local level. It is of particular interest that
the subsequent maturation of the KM programme in this
organization included the establishment of KM governance
in a form similar to the other case descriptions.
The nature of the benefits varied between the cases.
However, all these organizations have developed and used
KM governance to authorize KM activity. KM governance
principles and framework are constant. Possible differences
in the development of policy and selection of tools and
techniques depend on the aims and objectives of the KM
strategy as aligned with organizational aims and objectives.
The results of KM strategy implementation are expressed as
improved knowledge transfer across divisions and func-
tions, and ownership of KM at an organizational level.
Conclusions and implications
In this paper we have described the theoretical premises
supporting the KM governance model and the case studies
used to empirically investigate this concept. We have
identified constructs for KM governance as a mechanism
for achieving strategic KM benefits in a sustainable way. We
have provided evidence that organizations successfully
implementing KM governance, within the constructs of the
model, effectively and systematically realize benefits of
strategies to leverage and transfer knowledge to achieve
organizational goals.
We find that the research proposition is consistent with
most of the case studies described in the section Knowl-
edge management governance structures above, the
particular attributes of Cases 4 and 6 differentiate them
from the other four cases. These attributes may be
particular to large-scale manufacturing and is worthy of
further investigation.
From a theoretical perspective, this study advances
understanding of KM and transfer in distributed contexts
and offers a detailed analysis of governance of these
processes, outlining the functions and responsibilities of
the governance mechanism. This case study research
contributes to the research literature by identifying and
explicitly describing the processes that govern KM. It
strongly suggests that KM governance maximizes strategic
benefits where it is transparently implemented in large
multi-sited organizations.
As the analysis of the cases demonstrates, benefits
realization is best achieved when senior staff take the time
to design, implement and communicate through authoriz-
ing KM governance processes. While this should be a
reasonable assumption, this has not been evidenced in
earlier research.
It has been demonstrated that the KM governance model
provides constructs as the structural mechanism for
implementing KM. Moreover, the case study organizations
reported that such governance resulted in ongoing KM
benefits realization. Conclusions can be drawn that:
 Sustainable KM is supported by high level organizational
commitment through KM governance that: establishes
S Zyngier and F Burstein
151
policy to guide the development and implementation of
KM strategy; manages risks associated with implement-
ing KM strategies; takes financial accountability and
authority for the strategy; and seeks to monitor through
measurement how best to realize the benefits of that
investment. Additionally it is strongly suggested that
sustainability is further evidenced by continuing invest-
ment in KM.
 KM governance defines the transparent distribution of
decision-making rights that better allows the realization
of value from investments in implementing successful
and sustainable KM strategy in large, distributed
organizations. It achieves this through transparent
alignment of organizational knowledge to meet the aims
and objectives of the organization.
This research demonstrates the nexus between a strategic
approach to KM and sustainable benefits realization
through governance of KM programmes in large distributed
organizations, which fills the gap in KM research identified
by Zack et al. (2006) in their exploratory survey. This
study supports the argument that, in addition to KM
systems quality, firms must pay careful attention to
authority and goal setting as well as managing risks to
their KM programme to realize continuous and sustainable
benefits.
This research breaks new ground in understanding
the practice of KM in organizations. It has a practical
value, showing how effective and systematic realization
of benefits from KM strategy implementation can be
facilitated by providing a recommended governance
model that organizations can use as a guide to ensure
that authority; risk management; financial control and
measurement are operationalized at the right level of
authority. To this end, we have defined: the attributes
of KM governance; the constructs, roles and tasks
associated with the layers of governance; the planning
and implementation of an organizational KM strategy
that permits the realization of value from investments in
the KM strategy.
Limitations and future research
The research findings are drawn from a small number of
cases; the claims made on the basis of these findings must
be read with this limited context in mind. This research has
taken a case study approach to gather rich information
about: how KM governance is represented; whether KM
governance activities exist in organizations; and how the
key KM governance roles are defined in organizations
which claim systematic benefits realization. This research
has considered authority and its delegation at the highest
level. This research did not seek to address issues relating
to industry sector, organizational structure or organiza-
tional business models on which KM governance practices
were articulated.
Based on the experiences of the organizations studied,
the authors recommend that further consideration be given
to the forms and execution mechanisms of the constructs of
KM governance proposed in this paper including problem-
solving methods and processes. We plan future empirical
research in two directions. We will address the level of
authority in the granularity of the components at the levels
 Knowledge management governance
152
of strategy planning and development, at implementation.
We will survey to further test this model across a large
number and variety of organizations, and will seek to
determine any causal variation in KM governance patterns
impacting sustainability.
Of related interest for future research is an investigation
of KM in corporate risk management processes for
Enterprise Resource Management and the value of KM
strategies and technologies in the corporate decision-making
process and in the definition of aims and objectives.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to Professor Rudy Hirschheim and Professor
Judy McKay, and to colleagues at the following conferences for
their constructive feedback in the ongoing development and
refinement of this research: ACIS, 2009, ICDSS 2007, ACKMIDS
2007, HICSS39 2006, IFIP WG8.3 – DSS 2004, ISD 2003 and
ECIS 2002.
References
Agrawal, C. and Zyngier, S. (2009). KM Facing Simultaneous Obstacles and
Strategic Benefits Realization: A continuing conundrum, Paper presented at
the 20th Australian Conference on Information Systems.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2006). An Empirical Examination
of the Influence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management
Practices, Journal of Management Information Systems 22(3): 191–224.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual foundations and research
issues, MIS Quarterly 25(1): 107–136.
Altheide, D.L. and Johnson, J.M. (1998). Criteria for Assessing Interprretive
Validity in Qualitative Research, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.)
Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Thousand Oaks: Sage,
pp. 283–312.
Amidon, D.M. and Macnamara, D. (2003). The 7C’s of Knowledge Leadership:
Innovating our future, in C.W. Holsapple (ed.) Handbook on Knowledge
Management 1: Knowledge matters, (Vol. 1) Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
pp. 539–551.
Anantatmula, V. and Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the Underlying Relations
among Knowledge Management Outcomes, Journal of Knowledge
Management 10(4): 25–42.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method
and practice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arnott, D. and Pervan, G. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Decision Support
Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology 20: 67–87.
Barth, S. (2000). KM Horror Stories, Knowledge Management Magazine,
October.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy
in Studies of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 11(3): 369–386.
Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge Management Metrics, Industrial Management &
Data Systems 104(4): 457–468.
Braganza, A., Hackney, R. and Tanudjojo, S. (2007). Organizational Knowledge
Transfer Through Creation, Mobilization and Diffusion: A case analysis of
InTouch within Schlumberger, Information Systems Journal 19(5): 499–522.
Braganza, A. and Lambert, R. (2000). Strategic Integration: Developing a
process-governance framework, Knowledge and Process Management
7(3): 177–186.
Braganza, A. and Möllenkramer, G.J. (2002). Anatomy of a Failed Knowledge
Management Initiative: Lessons from PharmaCorp’s experiences, Knowledge
and Process Management 9(1): 23–33.
Burstein, F., Sohal, S., Sohal, A. and Zyngier, S. (2010). Knowledge
Management Leadership in Australia: The understanding of knowledge
management roles & responsibilities, Knowledge Management Research and
Practice 8(1): 76–88.
Butler, T. and Murphy, C. (2007). Understanding the Design of Information
Technologies for Knowledge Management in Organizations: A pragmatic
perspective, Information Systems Journal 17(2): 143–163.
S Zyngier and F Burstein
Cavaye, A.L.M. (1996). Case Study Research: A multi-faceted research approach
for IS, Information Systems Journal 6(3): 227–242.
Chua, A. and Lam, W. (2005). Why KM Projects Fail: A multi-case analysis,
Journal of Knowledge Management 9(3): 6–17.
Ciborra, C.U. and Andreu, R. (2001). Sharing Knowledge Across Boundaries,
Journal of Information Technology 16: 73–81.
Collison, C. and Parcell, G. (2003). Learning to Fly: Practical lessons from
some of the world’s leading knowledge companies, 2nd edn, Oxford:
Capstone.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully Completing Case
Study Research: Combining rigour, relevenace and pragmatism, Information
Systems Journal 8: 273–289.
Davenport, R. (2005). Why Does Knowledge Management Still Matter? T&D
59(2): 18.
Davenport, T. (2006). The Different Domains of Innovation, Babson Insight,
May.
Davenport, T., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998). Successful Knowledge
Management Projects, Sloan Management Review 39(2): 43–58.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge How Organizations
Manage What They Know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T.H. (2005). Thinking for a Living: How to get better performance
and results from knowledge workers, Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
DeLong, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to
Knowledge Management, The Academy of Management Executive; Ada 14(4):
113–127.
Desouza, K.C. and Raider, J.J. (2006). Cutting Corners: CKOs and knowledge
management, Business Process Management Journal 12(2): 129–134.
DeTienne, K.B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. and Harris, S. (2004). Toward a Model of
Effective Knowledge Management and Directions for Future Research:
Culture, leadership and CKO’s, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies 10(4): 26–43.
Dilnutt, R. (2002). Knowledge Management in Practice: Three contemporary
case studies, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
3(2): 75–81.
DiVanna, J.A. and Rogers, J. (2005). People: The new asset on the balance sheet,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Earl, M. and Scott, I.A. (1999). What is a Chief Knowledge Officer? Sloan
Management Review 40(2): 29.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing your
company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower, New York: Harper
Business.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, The
Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases,
Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal 50(1):
25–32.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Santos, F.M. (2002). Knowledge-Based View:
A new theory of strategy? in A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington
(eds.) Handbook of Strategy and Management, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
European Committee for Standardization (2004). European Guide to Good
Practice in Knowledge Management – Part 1: Knowledge management
framework CWA 14924-1:2004 (E), (No. CWA 14924-1:2004 (E)) Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization (Comite Europeen de
Normalisation) CEN.
Foss, N. (2007). The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges
and characteristics, Organization 14(1): 29–52.
Foss, N., Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2010). Governing Knowledge Sharing
in Organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research
directions, Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 455–482.
Frost, J. and Morner, M. (2004). Governing Corporate Commons – Governance
mechanisms and knowledge contributions, On Shifting Boundaries:
Governance, Competence and Economic Organization SIBRU Workshop at
Bristol Business School. [WWW document] Retrieved 25 May, 2005, from
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/research/research/sib/FrostJMornerM.pdf
(accessed 25th May 2005).
Georgopoulos, N.B. (2005). Knowledge Management as an Integral Part of
Strategic Management in e-Business Era, International Journal of Knowledge
and Learning 1(4): 373–387.
 Knowledge management governance
Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic
Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue): 109–133.
Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of Knowledge Management – Comparing 160
KM frameworks around the globe, Journal of Knowledge Management 13(4):
4–31.
Hendriks, P.H.J. (2001). Many Rivers to Cross: From ICT to knowledge
management systems, Journal of Information Technology 16: 57–72.
Hirschheim, R. and Schwarz, A. (2003). An Extended Platform Logic
Perspective of IT Governance: Managing perceptions and activities of IT,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 12(2): 129–166.
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2000). An Investigation of Factors that
Influence the Management of Knowledge in Organizations, Strategic
Information Systems 9: 235–261.
Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A threefold
framework, The Information Society 18(1): 47–64.
Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and Fighting Knowledge-
Sharing Hostility, Organizational Dynamics 31(1): 60–73.
Jennex, M. and Olfman, L. (2004). Assessing Knowledge Management Success/
Effectiveness Models, Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) – 2004, Hawaii.
Jennex, M. and Zyngier, S. (2007). Security as a Contributor to Knowledge
Management Success, Information Systems Frontiers 9(5): 493–504.
Kannabiran, G. and Pandyan, C. (2010). Enabling role of Governance in
Strategizing and Implementing KM, Journal of Knowledge Management
14(3): 335–347.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard
from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part 1,
Accounting Horizons 15(1): 87–104.
Karake, Z.A. (1995). The Management of Information Technology, Governance,
and Managerial Characteristics, Information Systems Journal 5(4):
271–284.
Kelleher, D. and Courtney, N. (2003). PD 7502 Guide to Measurements in
Knowledge Management, London: British Standards Institution.
Kemp, J., Pudlatz, M., Perez, P. and Ortega, A.M. (2002). KM Framework;
European KM Forum IST Project No 2000-26393, Brussels, The European
KM Forum Consortium, European Commission.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative
Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology, Organization Science 3(3):
383–397.
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S. and Freeze, R. (2006). A Knowledge Management
Success Model: Theoretical development and empirical validation, Journal of
Management Information Systems 23(3): 309–347.
Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational Knowledge Leadership: A grounded
theory approach, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(1):
51–75.
Lavergne, R. and Earl, R.L. (2006). Knowledge Management: A value
creation, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict
10(2): 43–60.
Liebowitz, J. and Suen, C.Y. (2000). Developing Knowledge Management
metrics for Measuring Intellectual Capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital
1(1): 54–67.
Little, W., Fowler, H.W., Coulson, J. and Onions, C.T. (1973). The Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mahnke, V. and Pedersen, T. (2004). Knowledge Governance and Value
Creation, in V. Mahnke and T. Pedersen (eds.) Knowledge Flows, Governance
and the Multinational Enterprise: Frontiers in international management
research, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2000). Overcoming the ‘Cultural Barriers’ to
Sharing Knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management 5(1): 76–85.
McElroy, M.W. (2003). The New Knowledge Management: Complexity,
Learning and Sustainable Innovation, Amsterdam: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Mehta, N., Oswald, S. and Mehta, A. (2007). Infosys Technologies: Improving
organizational knowledge flows, Journal of Information Technology 22:
456–464.
Menkhoff, T., Evers, H.-D. and Chay, Y.W. (2005). Governing and Managing
Knowledge in Asia, New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An
expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Harvard Business
Review 72(1): 107–114.
S Zyngier and F Burstein
153
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B.W. and Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy Safari; The
Complete Guide Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, London:
Pearson Educational.
Murphy, K.E. and Simon, S.J. (2002). Intangible Benefits Valuation in ERP
Projects, Information Systems Journal 12(4): 301–320.
Myers, M.D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MIS
Quarterly 21(2): 241–242.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York: Oxford
University Press.
O’Dell, C. and Leavitt, P. (2004). The Executives Role in Knowledge
Management, Houston: APQC Publications.
Onions, P. and de-Langen, R. (2006). Knowledge Management Governance,
Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Knowledge Management
(ECKM 2006). [WWW document] http://patrickonions.org/docs/academic/
2006%20KM%20governance%20ECKM%202006.pdf.
Oshri, I., van Fenema, P. and Kotlarsky, J. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in
Globally Distributed Teams: The role of transactive memory, Information
Systems Journal, Prepublished online 17 February.
Peltokorpi, V. and Tsuyuki, E. (2006). Knowledge Governance in a Japanese
Project-based Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice
4: 36–45.
Peterson, R.R. (2004). Integration Strategies and Tactics for Information
Technology Governance, in W. VanGrembergen (ed.) Strategies for
Information Technology Governance, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc,
pp. 37–80.
Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (2000). Managing Knowledge;
Building Blocks for Success, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research; Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches, 2nd edn, London: Sage Publications.
Reus, T.H., Ranft, A.L., Lamont, B.T. and Adams, G.L. (2009). An Interpretive
Systems View of Knowledge Investments, Academy of Management Review
34(3): 382–400.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-Dozen Knowledge-Sharing Barriers Managers Must
Consider, Journal of Knowledge Management 9(3): 18–35.
Ryu, C., Kim, Y.J., Chaudhury, A. and Rao, H.R. (2005). Knowledge Acquisition
via Three Learning Processes In Enterprise Information Portals: Learning-
by-investment, learning-by-doing, and learning-from-others, MIS Quarterly
29(2): 245–278.
Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (1999). Arrangements for Information
Technology Governance: A theory of multiple contingencies, MIS Quarterly
23(2).
Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (2000). Research Commentary: The
organizing logic for and enterprise’s IT activities in the digital era –
A prognosis of practice and a call fo research, Information Systems Research
11(2): 105–114.
Schroeder, A. (2005). KM Governance – A research project in progress,
Paper presented at the Socialising IT: Thinking About the People
the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney.
Schroeder, A. and Pauleen, D. (2007). KM Governance: Investigating the case
of a knowledge intensive research organization, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management 20(4): 414–431.
Schroeder, A. and Pauleen, D.J. (2005). The Emergence of KM Governance
in a Knowledge Intensive Research Organization, Paper presented at the
International Conference on Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Scott, J., Globe, A. and Schiffner, K. (2004). Jungles and Gardens: The evolution
of knowledge management at J.D. Edwards, MIS Quarterly Executive 3(1):
37–52.
Seeley, C. and Dietrich, B. (2000). Crafting a Knowledge Management Strategy
Part Three. Rolling out and Measuring the Returns, Knowledge Management
Review 3(1): 18–21.
Sharma, R.S., Teng, P.Y.H. and Tan, M.-W. (2007). Value-Added Knowledge
Management for Financial Performance: The case of an East Asian
conglomerate, Vine: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems 37(4): 484–501.
Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D. (2003a). Developing and Aligning a KM Strategy
WP 03-03. [WWW document] www.business.queens.ca/kbe (accessed 10th
December 2004).
Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D. (2003b). Developments in Practice IX: The
evolution of the KM function, Communications of the Association of
Information Systems 12: 69–79.
 Knowledge management governance
154
Smits, M. and deMoor, A. (2004). Measuring Knowledge Management
Effectiveness in Communities of Practice, Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Spender, J.C. (1996). Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Memory: Three
concepts in search of a theory, Journal of Organizational Change
Management 9(1): 63–78.
Spender, J.C. (2006). Getting Value from Knowledge Management, The TQM
Magazine 18(3): 238–254.
Spender, J.C. and Tsoukas, H. (2006). Method, Philosophy and Empirics in
KM and IC/COMMENTARY: On Spender’s ‘Method, philosophy and
empirics in KM and IC’, Journal of Intellectual Capital 7(1): 12–28.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Strong, B., Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2008). Organizational Governance
of Knowledge and Learning, Knowledge and Process Management 15(2):
150–157.
Sveiby, K.E. (1998). Measuring Intangibles and Intellectual Capital – An
emerging first standard. [WWW document] http://www.sveiby.com/articles/
EmergingStandard.html.
Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing Knowledge in Knowledge-Intensive
Firms, Human Resource Management Journal 13(2003): 60–75.
Tainio, R., Lilja, K. and Santalainen, T.J. (2001). The Role of Boards in
Facilitating or Limiting Learning in Organizations, in M. Dierkes, A.B. Antal,
J. Child and I. Nonaka (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 428–445.
Teece, D.J. (1998). Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The new economy,
markets for know-how, and intangible assets, California Management Review
40(3): 55–79.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management, Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533.
Tiwana, A. (2002). The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT,
strategy, and knowledge platforms, 2nd edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall PTR.
Turvani, M. (2001). Microfoundations of Knowledge Dynamics within the Firm,
Industry and Innovation 8(3): 309–323.
VanGrembergen, W., DeHaes, S. and Guldentops, E. (2004). Structures,
Processes and Relational Mechanisms for IT Governance, in
W. VanGrembergen (ed.) Strategies for Information Technology
Governance, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc., pp. 1–36.
Vanthournout, D. (2006). Return on Learning: Training for high performance at
Accenture, Chicago: Agate.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational Memory, Academy of
Management Review 16(1): 57–91.
Weill, P. (2004). Don’t Just Lead, Govern: Implementing effective IT
governance, MIS Quarterly Executive 3(1): 1–17.
Weill, P. and Ross, J. (2004). IT Governance: How top performers manage
IT decision rights for superior results, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Wenger, E.C., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating
Communities of Practice: A guide to managing knowledge, Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Wiig, K.M. (1997). Knowledge Management: An introduction and perspective,
The Journal of Knowledge Management 1(1): 6–14.
Wiig, K.M. (2004a). Knowledge Management 20 years aftery . The Evolution
and Increasing Significance of Knowledge Management, ECKM 2004.
Retrieved 11th January 2005.
Wiig, K.M. (2004b). People-Focused Knowledge Management: How effective
decision making leads to corporate success, Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth Heinemann.
Yu, W.-D., Chang, P.-L., Yao, S.-H. and Liu, S.-J. (2009). KVAM: Model for
measuring knowledge management performance of engineering community
of practice, Construction Management and Economics 27(8): 733–747.
Zack, M., McKeen, J.D. and Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge Management and
Organizational Performance: An exploratory survey, Paper presented
at the Thirty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii.
Zack, M. and Street, C. (2007, June). A Framework for Assessing the Impact of
Knowledge on Firm Performance, Paper presented at the International
S Zyngier and F Burstein
Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge, and Capabilities,
University of Western Ontario.
Zhang, J. and Faerman, S.R. (2007). Distributed Leadership in the Development
of a Knowledge Sharing System, European Journal of Information Systems
16(4): 479–493.
Zyngier, S. (2002). Knowledge Management Obstacles in Australia, Paper
presented at the 10th European Conference on Information Systems,
Gdan’sk, Poland.
Zyngier, S. (2005). Knowledge Management Governance, in D. Schwarz (ed.)
The Encyclopaedia of Knowledge Management, Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing, pp. 373–380.
Zyngier, S. (2007). Knowledge Management Governance: Defining the
measurement of knowledge management strategy development and
implementation outcomes, Paper presented at the Australian Conference on
Knowledge management and Intelligent Decision Support – Theory Wedded
to Practice (ACKMIDS’07), Melbourne.
Zyngier, S. (2008). Risk Management: Strengthening knowledge management,
International Journal of Knowledge Management 4(3): 19–32.
Zyngier, S. and Burstein, F. (2004). Knowledge Management Strategies:
Leaders and leadership, in H. Linger, J. Fisher, W. Wojtkowski,
W. G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, K. Vigo and J. Arnold (eds.) Constructing
the Infrastructure for the Knowledge Economy; Methods and Tools, Theory
and Structure. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Information Systems and Development (ISD’03), Melbourne: Kluwer
Academic, pp. 405–416.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F. and McKay, J. (2006). The Role of Knowledge
Management Governance in the Implementation of Strategy, Paper presented
at the 39th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS39), Hawaii.
About the authors
Suzanne Zyngier, PhD, is currently a senior lecturer at the
Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, La Trobe
University, Australia. Her research centres on the govern-
ance of knowledge management strategies and innovation.
She has conducted qualitative and quantitative research on
knowledge management since 2001 and initiated an
Australia-wide survey on the status of understanding and
adoption of knowledge management in top 1000 public and
private organizations, and more recently investigated this
phenomenon at the global level, and within the healthcare
supply chain. Dr. Zyngier publishes widely and regularly
presents her research at international conferences and to
industry. Prior to her appointment at La Trobe University,
Suzanne worked at both Monash and Swinburne Univer-
sities, and she has consulted to the professional, corporate
and not-for profit sectors.
Frada Burstein is currently a professor in the Faculty of
Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne,
Australia. Professor Burstein initiated and continues to lead
Knowledge Management Research Group. She has been a
chief investigator for a number of research projects
supported by grants and scholarships from the Australian
Research Council and industry. Professor Burstein’s
current research interests include knowledge management
technologies, intelligent decision support, cognitive aspects
of information systems development and use, organiza-
tional knowledge and memory, and systems development.
Professor Burstein is a secretary of IFIP WG8.3, Decision
Support Systems and is a past Chair of SIG DSS of the
Association of Information Systems.
 Knowledge management governance S Zyngier and F Burstein
155

Appendix A

Table A1 Interview subjects, location and schedule

Years Position/s No. informants Distribution of Location Duration

in KM organization of interview of interview
Case 1 2 Div. Chief 7 Australia: 8 locations Head office 90 min
4 KM co-ordinator Head office 60 min
1 Div. Chief Research Head office 60 min
8 KM officer R & D office 60 min
5 KM officer R & D Office 60 min
2 KM officer Head office 60 min
6 KM officer Regional office 90 min
Case 2 4 Global KM officer 1 Global: multiple locations Regional head office 90 min
Case 3 4 Global KM officers 2 together Global: multiple locations Regional head office 120 min
Case 4 4 Global KM officer 1 Global: multiple locations Head office 90 min
Case 5 4 Global KM officer 1 Global: multiple locations Head office 60 min
Case 6 4 Local KM officers 2 together Global: multiple locations Regional head office 90 min

Appendix B

Table B1 Example of interview text analysis

Benefits realization ‘I guess one of the benefits is that it’s put it on everybody’s horizon. So everybody is
Reflective, as if drawing thinking about knowledge management. There has been completely independent of the
conclusion for first time work, you know we are doing completely dependable work on information governance
Researcher – middle level board, completely independent there was a little sort of ground swell here at XXX.
K construct 2 People went “hey knowledge management, we should do something about that” ’
K construct 3

Benefits realization ‘Certainly [there have been benefits] in the area of exclusive knowledge sharing. The
Shows progression of events – recommendations that came out of the strategy from that early team report, the
before and after explicit management sharing issues were the easy ones. We called them the low
Nice use and continuance of hanging fruit on the tree. Mind you the tree got taller and taller and the fruit got
metaphor. higher and higher up the tree as we moved along. The things that we thought were
Senior officer, keen to show easy weren’t so easy although still easier than the other things.’
organization is effective but still
able to be critical.
K construct 3
K construct 4

Benefits realization ‘So in some sense as the people are more receptive to certain aspects of knowledge
KM obstacles management, they are less receptive to others. So if you try to talk to a couple of our
Senior officer – very assured. knowledge management people about records, they would be going – this is boring. So
construct 3 the first barrier that knowledge management is so broad that it’s actually got enough to
upset everybody. Of course the counterbalance is of course is that its actually enough to
impress everybody, but you need to keep both sides of the coin going.’

Appendix C 5. Please describe the organizational structures and pro-

Interview questions
1. What is the corporate philosophy or approach behind
the way that your organization manages knowledge?
2. What prompted the initiative to manage knowledge?
3. Please describe the implementation of this initiative
and who has the responsibility for putting the initiative in
place?
4. Who has authority over the management of knowledge?
cesses that govern this initiative.
6. What impact if any has the size and distributed nature of
this company had on the effective implementation of the
management of knowledge?
7. Where benefits are leveraged through the investment in
management of knowledge?
8. What factors contribute to the success of the manage-
ment of knowledge strategy?
9. What obstacles if any have been encountered in the
management of knowledge?