Journal of Knowledge Management

The rise of knowledge towards attention management

Thomas H. Davenport, Sven C. Völpel,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas H. Davenport, Sven C. Völpel, (2001) "The rise of knowledge towards attention management", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Issue: 3, pp.212-222, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110400816
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110400816
Downloaded on: 21 November 2017, At: 11:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4645 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2001),"Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people",
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 68-75 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419">https://
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)

doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419</a>
(2005),"Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium
enterprises", Industrial Management &amp; Data Systems, Vol. 105 Iss 3 pp. 261-279 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590101">https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590101</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:305060 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The rise of knowledge
towards attention
management
Thomas H. Davenport and
Sven C. VoÈlpel
The authors
Thomas H. Davenport is Director, Accenture Institute for
Strategic Change, a Visiting Professor at the Amos Tuck
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
School of Business at Dartmouth College, and
Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Babson College, in
Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA.
Sven C. VoÈlpel is a Business Transformation Partner
within Siemens and a Research Associate at the Institute
of Management, as well as at the Research Institute for
Organizational Psychology at the University of St Gallen
(HSG), St Gallen, Switzerland.
Keywords
Knowledge management, Organizational structure,
Projects
Abstract
Knowledge management is the key success factor of
today's business leaders. Focuses on the rise of
knowledge management. Provides a summary of useful
concepts, different project types, supportive
organizational structures, effective technologies and
points out future knowledge management directions.
Shows that currently, within knowledge management,
attention management has become the most important
success factor. In future the management of attention
management is likely to decide which businesses will be
among the leaders of the new economy.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . pp. 212±221
# MCB University Press . ISSN 1367-3270
212
Introduction
Beginning in the mid-1990s, individuals and
organizations began to think seriously about
managing what they know. This movement
came to be known as ``knowledge
management''. By ``knowledge'' ± a term
fraught with history and definitional peril ±
firms generally mean codified information
with a high proportion of human value-added,
including insight, interpretation, context,
experience, wisdom, and so forth. Some
knowledge management projects address
relatively mundane information such as
personnel manuals, corporate procedures,
and cafeteria menus, but most also include
more knowledgeable content: best practices,
lessons learned, and insights about customers,
competitors, and business partners.
The ``management'' in knowledge
management has also been the subject of
controversy. Some critics argue that knowledge
cannot be managed because it is invisible and
intangible. But if we take management to mean
any concerted attempt to improve how
knowledge is created, distributed, or used,
then knowledge management hardly seems
impossible. Management has previously
involved the manipulation of other invisible,
intangible phenomena, e.g. motivation,
inspiration, and creativity.
Only a few years ago, knowledge
management was a fledgling concept in
Western businesses. Now it is becoming a
mainstream business function. Most large
companies in the USA, and many in Europe,
have some sort of knowledge management
initiative in place, including every major firm
in the professional services, automobile,
pharmaceutical, and oil industries. Chief
knowledge officer (CKO) positions are being
established in many companies. Every major
consulting company has a knowledge
management practice. In a relatively quiet
and rapid way, the concept has penetrated
into many different functions and processes of
business.
Perhaps even more importantly, the idea of
managing knowledge has begun to change
how business people think and act. When
This article is based on a research cooperation
between Thomas Davenport and Sven VoÈlpel at
the Andersen Consulting Institute for Strategic
Change, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, from May
until October 2000.
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
embarking on a new business venture, they
are asking themselves and others: ``How can
we capture what we learn?''. Developers of
business strategy are focusing on what a
company knows, and what it needs to know,
as inputs to strategic goals. Before taking
action on a major initiative, business people
are consulting repositories of knowledge and
best practices to guide their actions.
Knowledge management is becoming
embedded into ideas about good
management in general, which is perhaps the
best possible outcome for the phenomenon.
Useful concepts in knowledge
management
The practice of knowledge management has
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
benefited from several key concepts, most of
which were not created within the knowledge
management movement, but have been
imported into it. We will describe several
concepts below, make reference to their
creators, and discuss how they have been
applied in organizations.
Tacit vs explicit knowledge
This idea can be traced back to the philosopher
Polanyi (1958, 1967), but has been applied to
business and knowledge management by the
Japanese management scholar, Nonaka. It
suggests that there are two types of knowledge:
tacit, which is embedded in the human brain
and cannot be expressed easily, and explicit
knowledge, which can be easily codified
(Nonaka, 1991). Both types of knowledge are
important, but Western firms have focused
largely on managing explicit knowledge.
Codification vs personalization
This distinction is related to the tacit vs explicit
concept; it involves an organization's primary
approach to knowledge transfer (Hansen et al.,
1999). Companies using codification
approaches rely primarily on repositories of
explicit knowledge; personalization approaches
imply that the primary mode of knowledge
transfer is direct interaction among people.
Both are necessary in most organizations, but
an increased focus on one approach or the
other at any given time within a specific
organization may be appropriate.
Knowledge markets
This concept recognizes the interest that
individuals have in holding onto the
213
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
knowledge they possess; in order to part with
it, they need to receive something in exchange
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Any
organization is a knowledge market in which
knowledge is exchanged for other things of
value ± money, respect, promotions, or other
knowledge.
Communities of practice
This idea, which developed in the
``organizational learning'' movement, posits
that knowledge flows best through networks
of people who may not be in the same part of
the organization, but have the same work
interests (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Some
firms have attempted to formalize these
communities; Chrysler, for example, has
created more than 100 communities in the
new car design area, one for each major
component of a car. The concept has been
sufficiently successful that it is being extended
into the much larger Daimler Benz
organization in Europe after the company's
merger with Chrysler.
Intangible assets
Many observers have recently pointed out that
formal accounting systems do not measure the
valuable knowledge, intellectual capital, and
other "intangible" assets of a corporation
(Sveiby, 1997). This is undeniably true; the
market values of knowledge-intensive
organizations are often several times their
``book'' or accounting value. Some analysts
have even argued that accounting systems
should change to incorporate intangible assets
and that knowledge capital should be reflected
on the balance sheet. We believe, however,
that although it is important to measure and
manage intangible assets, assigning a fixed and
permanent value to knowledge is impossible,
and we will never see knowledge on a balance
sheet. While some organizations, specifically
the Swedish insurance firm Skandia, are noted
for their attention to intangible assets, no firm
has yet determined how to translate the value
of knowledge into monetary value.
These concepts are useful, and should
continue to be applied to the management of
knowledge in organizations. However, given
the movement toward embedding knowledge
management into other aspects of business,
the concepts may be incorporated into other,
broader approaches to business and
management.
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
Knowledge management project types
Most knowledge management projects in
organizations fall into a relatively few
categories or types, each of which has a key
objective. While it is possible and even
desirable to combine multiple objectives in a
single project, this was not normally the case
in a study conducted of 31 knowledge
management projects in 1997 (Davenport et
al., 1998). Since that time, it is possible that
projects have matured and have taken on
more ambitious collections of objectives.
Among early adopters of knowledge
management, by far the most common
objective involves implementing some sort of
knowledge repository (Figure 1). The
objective of this type of project is to capture
knowledge for later and broader access by
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
others within the same organization. The
repositories typically contain a specific type of
knowledge for a particular business function
or process, e.g.:
. ``Best practices'' knowledge within a
quality or business process management
function (adopted by such organizations
as Texas Instruments, Citibank, and
Chevron).
. Knowledge for sales purposes involving
products, markets, and customers
(Hewlett-Packard and other technology-
oriented firms like Siemens[1] have found
these especially useful).
. Lessons learned in projects or product
development efforts (Bechtel and BASF
are two firms that have employed this
approach).
. Knowledge around implementation of
information systems (the US insurance
firm USAA was one of the earliest
adopters of this knowledge domain).
. Competitive intelligence for strategy and
planning functions (common in many
firms).
. ``Learning histories'' or records of
experience with a new corporate direction
or approach (Ford has employed these,
Figure 1 Types of knowledge management projects
214
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
for example, to record experiences in
designing new cars).
Knowledge in repositories may be ``official'' ±
edited and vetted by company management ±
or unofficial and unapproved. It may be from
external or internal sources, and may be
textual (most common), numeric, or graphic.
Although most knowledge repositories serve a
single function, it is increasingly common for
companies to construct an internal ``portal''
so that employees can get access to multiple
different repositories and sources from one
screen.
It is also possible and increasingly popular
for repositories to contain not (or not only)
knowledge itself, but also pointers to experts
within the organization on key knowledge
topics. Called ``knowledge Yellow Pages'',
these systems facilitate contact and knowledge
transfer between knowledgeable people and
those who seek their knowledge (Dachs et al.,
2000). It is also feasible to combine stored
knowledge with lists of the individuals who
contributed the knowledge and could provide
more detail or background on it.
A few knowledge management projects
focus on knowledge transfer alone, either
through technological means
(videoconferencing, for example, as at BP's
oil exploration sites) or through direct contact
between people. One could argue, of course,
that the ancient institution called the
``meeting'' performed this function, although
rarely within a conscious knowledge transfer
context. Sematech, a semiconductor
manufacturing research consortium in Texas,
found that meetings were a more successful
knowledge transfer mechanism than any
technology-based approach.
Several knowledge management projects
attempt to better manage knowledge assets,
either measuring their level or value within an
organization (a notoriously difficult problem)
or, more valuably to our mind, attempting to
increase their value through more effective
harvesting and use. Dow Chemical's
successful attempt to increase its patent and
licensing revenues and to decrease patent
management costs, for example, would fall
into this category.
Finally, some firms simply attempt to
improve the overall environment for
managing knowledge in their projects. They
may try to increase awareness of knowledge
and its role in business and organizations, or
to motivate employees to create, share, or use
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
knowledge to a greater degree[2]. This
objective may be coupled with a more
tangible effort to build a knowledge
repository. This approach to knowledge
management can be found at the advertising
agency Young and Rubicam, for example,
where the goal is to integrate knowledge
management into everyone's thoughts and
actions.
Organizational structures for knowledge
management
A key aspect of the management of knowledge
in organizations is the development of an
organizational structure to perform
knowledge-oriented tasks. While many
existing functions are already concerned with
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
aspects of knowledge ± including research and
development, corporate libraries, market
research, and information technology
functions ± in most companies there has been
no group with broad responsibility for
knowledge management.
But organizations are beginning to create
such groups. They involve the establishment of
new roles and responsibilities, new skills, new
relationships. Creating an organizational
structure to manage knowledge is by no means
enough for success at knowledge management,
but it is an important ingredient of success.
The capabilities necessary to staff
knowledge management functions fall into at
least three different levels within a new
structure. At the most senior, and visible,
level is the CKO or equivalent role (Earl and
Scott, 1999). These new positions are
appearing in many companies; almost every
large professional services firm we work
together, for example, has such a role
(including Andersen Consulting, Boston
Consulting Group, Ernst & Young,
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, EDS, KPMG,
etc.)[3].
The role is an important one for both
operational and symbolic reasons.
Operationally, CKOs perform a variety of key
roles, including serving as the chief designer of
the knowledge architecture, the top of the
reporting relationship for knowledge
professionals, the head technologist for
knowledge technologies, and the primary
procurement officer for external knowledge
content. Symbolically, the presence of a CKO
serves as an important indicator that a firm
views knowledge and its management as critical
215
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
to its success. If the CKO is a member of the
senior executive team, it becomes obvious to
employees that knowledge is a critical business
resource on the level of labor and capital.
But a CKO alone can do little. Since
knowledge is typically managed in the form of
a project, firms will need a cadre of knowledge
project managers ± a middle management
layer within the knowledge structure. These
managers will need to understand knowledge
and its uses in various aspects of the business,
the motivational and attitudinal factors
necessary to get people to create, share, and
use knowledge effectively, and the ways to use
technology to enhance knowledge activities.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the
new knowledge structure is the level of those
who do the day-to-day work of knowledge.
These roles go by a variety of names, but are
most simply described as knowledge managers.
On a daily basis, knowledge managers perform
a broad collection of tasks, including:
. facilitation of knowledge-sharing
networks and communities of practice;
. creation, editing, and pruning of
``knowledge objects'' in a repository;
. building and maintaining technology-
based knowledge applications;
. incorporating knowledge-oriented job
descriptions, motivational approaches,
and evaluation and reward systems into
the human resource management
processes of the organization;
. redesigning knowledge work processes,
and incorporating knowledge tasks and
activities into them.
Some firms already have several hundred such
knowledge managers. They are drawn from
such backgrounds as researchers, librarians,
technologists, journalists, or organizational
change experts. In addition to establishing the
knowledge manager role, companies that are
serious about knowledge management will
have to develop rewarding career paths for
these individuals.
One last issue in knowledge-oriented
organizational structures involves the
relationship between new knowledge
management groups and existing parts of the
organization that address knowledge issues.
Despite the absence of centralized knowledge
management groups in most companies, there
do exist many knowledge-oriented business
functions. New knowledge management
groups will not replace them, but rather
augment their existing efforts. The various
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
providers of knowledge services in
organizations will have to determine how they
relate to each other and what the ideal
division of labor is for different knowledge
management requirements. Research and
development groups, for example, may have
the primary responsibility for knowledge
creation; corporate libraries may be charged
with helping employees access internal and
external knowledge. It will not serve
organizations well to have different internal
providers of knowledge services competing
with each other and having confusing
messages about who does what.
Technologies for knowledge
management
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
Knowledge management technology is not a
single technology, but rather a broad
collection of technologies that need to be
adopted and integrated. Some of the
technologies, e.g. those derived from
``artificial intelligence'' tools, are not new.
Some are useful for not only managing
knowledge, but also managing data and
information ± as is true of intranets and the
Web. We will describe the several leading
types of technologies being used for
knowledge management today.
Repository and access technology
As noted above, the most common type of
knowledge management project involves
building repositories of codified knowledge.
Not surprisingly, then, the most common
technologies are those that allow firms to
build repositories, provide broad access, and
allow seekers of knowledge to find the
knowledge objects that meet their needs.
There are three basic ``backbones'' for
knowledge repository and access
environments: Lotus Notes, Web-based
intranets, and Microsoft's Exchange. Notes
was the first tool for this purpose, but
intranets and Exchange, e.g. within Andersen
Consulting, Boston Consulting Group,
KPMG, McKinsey and Siemens, are growing
faster at this point.
These backbones are usually supplemented
by other basic tools for repository and access
management:
. search engines;
. document creation and management
tools;
216
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
. automated tools for editing and pruning
knowledge bases;
. tools for capturing and managing expert
biographies.
Repository and search technologies are
already quite capable in dealing with textual
information and knowledge. Future tools,
however, will be able to search and retrieve all
kinds of information formats in one query ±
from summarized data to textual information
to audio and video information on a subject.
Companies are already beginning to construct
Web-based portals that provide access to
multiple types of knowledge.
Structured knowledge representation
tools
When companies want to use knowledge in
real-time, mission-critical applications, they
have to structure the knowledge base for
rapid, precise access; a Web search yielding
hundreds of documents will not suffice when
a customer is waiting on the phone for an
answer. Representing and structuring
knowledge is a requirement that has long been
addressed by ``artificial intelligence''
researchers; now their technologies are being
applied in the context of knowledge
management. Rule-based systems and, more
commonly, case-based systems, are used to
capture and provide access to customer
service problem resolution, legal knowledge,
new product development knowledge, and
many other types. While it can be difficult and
labor-intensive to ``author'' a structured
knowledge base, the effort can pay off in
terms of faster responses to customers, lower
cost per knowledge transaction, and lessened
requirements for experienced, expert
personnel.
Knowledge management e-commerce
tools
Thus far, knowledge management has largely
focused on internal issues within companies.
However, with the strongly increased interest
around the world in electronic commerce,
companies will begin to require tools that
allow them to distribute knowledge over
private and public networks. Some vendors
(such as Broadvision and Vignette) have
already begun to introduce such tools; they
provide functionality for customizing the
menu of available knowledge to individual
customers, allowing sampling of knowledge
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
before buying, and carrying out sales
transactions for knowledge purchases.
Future directions in knowledge
management
Thus far, we have primarily described the
present state of knowledge management. We
will conclude by describing some aspects of
knowledge management that may develop in
the future. Most importantly, we believe that
the management of knowledge will continue
to grow in its importance to business success.
Although the knowledge management
movement has aspects of faddishness (many
conferences, many books, many articles in the
business press), and it may lose some of its
current level of visibility, it must become part
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
of the basic fabric of successful businesses.
There are too many knowledge workers
dealing with too much knowledge for
knowledge management to disappear.
In fact, we believe it will expand.
Knowledge management developed first in
industries and functions that are basically
selling knowledge ± professional services,
pharmaceuticals, research and development
functions. It is already clear that knowledge
management is quickly moving into other
industries, including manufacturing, financial
services, even government and military
organizations. In the future, we expect that
every industry will view itself as knowledge-
intensive and will adopt knowledge
management approaches in virtually every
business unit and function.
Consistent with the broadening of
knowledge management in organizations, we
believe that there will be a shift in the
organizational focus on the topic. Thus far,
the primary emphasis has been on building
professional capabilities ± knowledge
management specialists, formal procedures,
separate knowledge management skills. To
institutionalize knowledge management fully,
the focus must shift to the amateurs ± those
whose roles in organizations are not primarily
knowledge management, but accomplishing
their real organizational missions. We must
begin to hire workers for their aptitude and
motivation around knowledge, design
knowledge activities into everyday roles, and
create a culture in which every worker views
knowledge management as part of his/her job.
Despite the fact that knowledge is often
gathered on the topic of best business
217
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
practices and processes, most organizations
have not taken a conscious process-oriented
approach to knowledge management and
knowledge work. However, there is an
implicit process perspective shared by most
organizations that attempt to manage
knowledge. The process of knowledge
management begins with knowledge creation
(Von Krogh et al., 2000a, b) and progresses to
knowledge capture and storage, knowledge
refinement, knowledge distribution,
knowledge use, and monitoring of the entire
process, which should then impact the
beginning of the process (Figure 2).
The aspects of the process most commonly
focused on by firms practicing knowledge
management are certainly knowledge capture
and storage, and knowledge distribution.
These subprocesses involve building
repositories and enabling access to them; they
are relatively easy to address using
information technologies, and are relatively
tangible. Knowledge creation, according to
one survey of knowledge managers in the
USA, is the least likely subprocess to be
addressed formally. The refinement of
knowledge is viewed as labor-intensive and
difficult. Knowledge use, one of the most
important subprocesses in any firm, is seldom
addressed in any formal or structured way. It
seems that the more invisible the subprocess,
the less likely it is to be addressed as part of a
knowledge management initiative.
Companies and organizations could also
take a process-oriented view of knowledge
work itself (Dachler and Hosking, 1995;
Dachler and RuÈegg-StuÈrm, 1999), and the
incorporation of knowledge management
activities into it. Knowledge work processes
refer to the inputs, tasks, and outputs of
knowledge workers. Examples of knowledge
work processes include planning, marketing,
consulting, managing, and aspects of sales,
customer service, and manufacturing
processes. While knowledge workers may
Figure 2 The knowledge management process
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
view their work in unstructured terms, it is
possible to view knowledge work as involving
a somewhat structured process that can be
designed and improved (Davenport et al.,
1996). In US and European firms, knowledge
work processes were not commonly addressed
in business process reengineering or quality
programs; administrative or operational
processes were the primary focus of those
movements.
A key goal of knowledge managers should be
to understand knowledge work processes and
to incorporate key knowledge management
activities ± creation, distribution, use, and so
forth ± into those processes. At each step,
managers should attempt to identify how
knowledge can better be imported and used, or
exported and stored for later access by the
broader firm. Knowledge work process
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
designers should also focus on eliminating non-
value-adding activity; otherwise, knowledge
workers will not have time to perform desired
knowledge management activities. Simply
adding knowledge management tasks on top of
existing knowledge work processes will fail in
most cases.
If there is a limit to the success of
knowledge management, it lies in the area of
human attention. There is only so much
employee and managerial attention to go
around, and even the highest-value
knowledge is of little use unless someone can
attend to it. One of the key battlegrounds in
the future knowledge war will be the
management of attention: understanding how
it is allocated by individuals and
organizations, knowing how to capture it
more effectively for important information
and knowledge, using technology to get, keep,
and protect it. Attention is the currency of
future business, and is already the scarcest
resource in many organizations. In addition to
knowledge and knowledge management, in
the future all organizations will need to focus
their attention on attention.
Attention management is one aspect of the
broader key to success in knowledge
management: people and their effective
management. In the future, organizations will
realize that the most valuable aspect of their
organizations is the knowledge they possess,
and that knowledge is created and applied
only in the minds of human beings.
Technology can provide assistance in
knowledge management, but it pales in
comparison to developing knowledge-
oriented cultures, motivating individuals to
218
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
share and use knowledge, and encouraging
every person to view their jobs in terms of
effective knowledge management. Managing
knowledge is managing people; managing
people is managing knowledge.
Case studies of knowledge management
Hewlett-Packard
Knowledge management projects began to
surface at Hewlett-Packard (HP), a large,
diversified maker of computers, printers, and
electronic instruments, in the early 1990s.
One of the first applications involved
transmitting knowledge on HP computer
system sales and service issues to the dealer
channel. Other early knowledge management
applications involved capturing and using
knowledge about information technology
project management, about education
offerings for HP's training community, about
new product development, and about where
expertise is located within HP laboratories. By
1999 HP had undertaken more than 100
knowledge management projects in almost all
areas of the business. Most of these have been
viewed as successful by their creators.
HP's knowledge management efforts were
largely bottom-up, with little involvement by
senior management. The company's corporate
information technology function did attempt to
educate knowledge managers about some of
the issues involved and to connect them with
each other, but knowledge management was
not connected with any specific corporate
strategy. HP has a tradition of divisional
autonomy, and most knowledge management
projects have stayed within divisional
boundaries. HP's biggest challenge in
knowledge management is probably the sharing
of knowledge across the entire organization.
Chrysler and Daimler Chrysler
Chrysler began seriously to address
knowledge management in the mid-1990s.
The primary motivation for the effort came
when the new vehicle engineering department
noticed that quality problems in vehicle
design that had previously been solved were
re-appearing in Chrysler cars and trucks.
Managers concluded that engineering experts
were no longer able to pass along lessons
learned and problems solved to each other,
since they spent most of their time on cross-
functional ``platform teams'' with people from
other business functions.
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
In order to address this problem, Chrysler
formed a collection of ``Tech Clubs'', or
knowledge-based communities, for technical
specialists in over 100 different areas. Experts
in car bumper technology, for example, now
can get together in both face-to-face and
electronic contexts to share their knowledge.
Each club is supported by a facilitator and by
a Lotus Notes ``Book of knowledge''. The
clubs have enjoyed high levels of
participation, and quality problems have
decreased since their initiation.
After Daimler Benz and Chrysler merged in
1998, Daimler Chrysler managers in the
company's corporate university, newly
responsible for knowledge management,
decided to adopt the ``Tech club'' approach
throughout the company, expanding both the
number and average size of the clubs. It is still
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
too early to tell whether these communities
will function as well across geography and
previously diverse corporate cultures as they
did within Chrysler alone.
Sematech
Sematech, a research and development
consortium of US semiconductor companies,
was formed in 1987, to counter a perceived
threat from Japanese firms. Based in Austin,
Texas, like another high-tech R&D
consortium (Microelectronics and Computer
Corporation, or MCC), Sematech attributes
most of its success in transferring knowledge
to human factors. Because none of its
sponsors (AT&T, IBM, Intel, Texas
Instruments and ten other firms) are based in
Austin, knowledge management and transfer
cannot be based on casual contact.
Sematech believed that knowledge or
technology transfer to sponsors was important
from the beginning, in part because it had
observed difficulties in that area in MCC's
history. Sematech founders created a senior
management role to be in charge of
knowledge transfer, and undertook many
different mechanisms to achieve the goal. One
of the key approaches involved the presence
of ``assignees'' from the sponsoring firms who
would spend time in Austin, participate in the
research, and then take ideas back with them.
Sematech also had frequent meetings of
managers and professionals from the sponsor
firms at its headquarters location. As one
manager of technology transfer put it: ``We
have documents, document databases, an
intranet Web, groupware, you name it. But
the assignees and the face-to-face meetings
219
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
are by far the most important channels for
transferring knowledge to the member firms.''
MCC, which relied primarily on documents
and technical means of knowledge transfer, is
now largely defunct. Sematech was so
successful that it turned down the possibility
of continued US Government support and
became fully supported by its sponsoring
firms. It has also formed Sematech
International, a consortium of firms from the
USA, Europe, and Asia.
Siemens
The movement towards knowledge
management by Siemens over the last three
years has been an extraordinary
transformation. With 153 years of history, it is
one of the world's oldest, largest, and
historically most successful corporations.
Between 60 percent and 80 percent ± and the
proportion is growing ± of value-added
Siemens generates is linked directly to
knowledge. It has become an organization that
is highly dependent on knowledge. Siemens,
once noted for its bureaucracy and its
deliberation, has embraced a new business
concept in a brief period of time.
There are several reasons why knowledge
management is important for Siemens. First of
all, the company is global. If employees are to
share knowledge, they must do so through
means other than (or in addition to) informal
face-to-face communications. The aspects of
knowledge management that involve
technology-enabled repositories and sharing
networks ± that is, the parts that help to
overcome geography ± were well suited to an
organization dispersed around the world.
Second, the firm is built on technology. Since
knowledge management is greatly enhanced
through the effective use of very rapidly
changing information technology, it is not
surprisingly that Siemens is an relatively early
and enthusiastic up-to-date adopter of
knowledge management.
Third, the corporation is a highly diverse
organization that participates in a wide variety
of businesses. If knowledge can be shared
across business units, then one Siemens
business unit can take advantage of the
learning and expertise from another. Another
rational moving towards knowledge
management is the shift from a product or ``box
selling'' manufacturing-oriented firm to a ``total
solutions'' provider including services that meet
a customer need. Most of these services are
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
knowledge-based, and benefit from activities
to capture, distribute, and use knowledge.
Over time, Siemens business units will
become even more knowledge-based. This
transformation is already beginning, and will
probably characterize Siemens' direction for
the next several decades.
The uniqueness of Siemens' approach is, that
in the past, it was known for its strong
hierarchy, but its approach to knowledge
management has not been hierarchical at all.
Instead, the approach was relatively grass-
roots and ``bottom up''. Without any
suggestion or provocation from above, mid-
level employees and managers in Siemens
business units began to create repositories,
communities of practice, and informal sharing
approaches for knowledge. After these
business units began to develop knowledge
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
initiatives, they looked around and noticed
that others were doing the same thing. After a
period of informal communication, the
employees and managers who were managing
knowledge began to form a semi-official
community of practice themselves. Ultimately
they began to feel that they need a corporate
group to facilitate the firm's broad efforts, and
they were successful in convincing senior
executives to create the corporate knowledge
management function. Most of the knowledge
management efforts are taking place in the
business units, but the corporate group plays
a coordinating role. There is no organization
in the world, other than consulting firms, with
such a lot of knowledge workers.
Siemens' approach to knowledge
management is also unusual for the diversity of
initiatives and applications that are underway
within the company. The breadth of
approaches and tools being employed across
Siemens is a good fit to the diversity and
complexity of the organization itself.
Siemens' approach to knowledge
management is also notable for the extant of
its relationship with external entities, particularly
universities. The firm's openness to external
experts and sharing of ideas among a broad
network will eventually lead to a more
successful and advanced state of knowledge
management.
Siemens' external marketing focus is another
distinctive attribute of its overall knowledge
management focus. In today's economy, a
firm must not only do good knowledge
management, but also be known for doing it.
To that end, Siemens has undertaken several
initiatives to tell the world about its
220
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
knowledge management initiatives, including
books, videos, a large corporate exhibition at
EXPO 2000, and various conferences to
which the public ± and knowledge
management opinion leaders ± have been
invited.
There are several challenges to knowledge
management Siemens has to overcome. First of
all, Siemens' executives have begun to
guarantee to shareholders that they will achieve
a better-than-market rate of return from the
capital they invest in the company. The firm
also plans to be listed on equity markets in the
USA ± a set of capital markets requiring high
levels of profitability, growth, and financial
return. This is therefore a relatively difficult
time for Siemens to make substantial investments
in intangible capabilities such as knowledge
management. But even at a time when
investments are given a higher level of scrutiny,
Siemens business units and the corporate
knowledge management functions have found
the resources to give knowledge management a
strong start.
Another challenge for Siemens in knowledge
management is setting a course between local
and global knowledge initiatives. While earlier
we argued that the global nature of the
company provides a strong rational for
knowledge management, it also creates
difficulties. Siemens business units have
knowledge initiatives that cut across countries
and continents, and other programs that work
only within a particular country. Employees
must choose to allocate their attention and
energies to either a global system or a local one.
Many participants in knowledge initiatives may
realize the value of a global system, but may
also be more comfortable with the language of
their home country[4]. The balance between
local and global knowledge management will be
struck every day, and it is important to keep
them in balance.
Another tension in Siemens will be between
knowledge initiatives that support the entire
firm, versus those that advance a particular
business unit or even a smaller group within it.
Firmwide initiatives help to exploit the scale of
Siemens business and promise the
``knowledge synergy'' described above. More
specialized, focused initiatives will be more
easily measured, and may be better supported
by managers who are responsible for a unit's
financial performance. Like the local vs global
distinction mentioned, this is a creative
tension that will play out over time[5].
 The rise of knowledge towards attention management
Thomas H. Davenport and Sven C. VoÈlpel
Notes
1 How a knowledge management network leverages
sales performance within Siemens can be seen in:
Gibbert et al. (2000).
2 One possibility for incentive systems are shares for
contributing to ShareNet, a knowledge
management system within Siemens. For further
information see: Gibbert et al. (2000).
3 Also based on semi-structured interviews conducted
by Sven VoÈlpel at Harvard Business School,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
and Boston, Massachusetts, USA, in May and June
2000.
4 For the discussion of this knowledge ± and
specifically attention management problem ± see
Davenport and Beck (2000).
5 For detailed case studies of the variety of
knowledge management initiatives and applications
within Siemens, see: Davenport and Probst (2000).
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)
References
Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (1991), ``Organizational learning
and communities of practice: toward a unified view
of working, learning, and innovation'', Organization
Science, Vol. 2, pp. 40-57.
Dachler, P. and Hosking, D. (1995), ``The primacy of
relations in socially constructing organizational
realities'', in Hosking, D., Dachler, P. and Gergen, K.
(Eds), Management and Organization: Relational
Alternatives to Individualism, Avebury, Aldershot,
pp. 1-28.
Dachler, P. and RuÈegg-StuÈrm, J. (1999), ``Beyond mere
management ± critical challenges in fundamental
organizational change processes from a systemic-
relational-constructionist perspective'', Working
paper, University of St Gallen, St Gallen.
Dachs, C., Holz, C., LaÈssig, A. and Rombold, A. (2000),
``The knowledge network indicator ± measuring
knowledge networking and knowledge transfer'', in
Davenport, T. and Probst, G. (Eds), Knowledge
Management Case Book. Best Practices, John Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 218-30.
Davenport, T. and Beck, J. (2000), ``Getting the attention
you need'', Harvard Business Review, September-
October, pp. 119-26.
Davenport, T. and Probst, G. (Eds) (2000), Knowledge
Management Case Book. Best Practices, John Wiley,
New York, NY.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge:
How Organizations Manage What They Know,
Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998),
``Successful knowledge management projects'',
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 43-57.
Davenport, T., Jarvenpaa, S. and Beers, M. (1996),
``Improving knowledge work processes'', Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 37, Summer, pp. 53-65.
221
Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 . Number 3 . 2001 . 212±221
Earl, M. and Scott, I. (1999), ``Opinion: what is a chief
knowledge officer?'', Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 40, Winter, pp. 29-38.
Gibbert, M., Jonczyk, C. and VoÈlpel, S. (2000), ``ShareNet
± the next generation knowledge management'', in
Davenport, T. and Probst, G. (Eds), Knowledge
Management Case Book. Best Practices, John Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 22-39.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ``What's
your strategy for managing knowledge?'', Harvard
Business Review, March-April.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ``The knowledge-creating company'',
Harvard Business Review, November/December,
pp. 96-104.
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-
critical Philosophy, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Polanyi, M. (1967), ``The tacit dimension'', Garden City,
Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Sveiby, K. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth,
Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000a), Enabling
Knowledge Creation. How to Unlock the Mystery of
Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of
Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds)
(2000b), Knowledge Creation. A Source of Value,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Further reading
Gibbert, M., Kugler, P. and VoÈlpel, S. (2000), ``Getting real
about knowledge sharing: the premium-on-top
bonus system'', in Davenport, T. and Probst, G.
(Eds), Knowledge Management Case Book. Best
Practices, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 200-17.
Gibbert, M., Leibold, M. and VoÈlpel, S. (2001),
``Rejuvenating corporate intellectual capital (IC) by
co-opting customer competence'', Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 2, May (forthcoming).
Hosking, D., Dachler, P. and Gergen, K. (Eds),
Management and Organization: Relational
Alternatives to Individualism, Avebury, Aldershot,
pp. 1-28.
RuÈegg-StuÈrm (2000), ``Jenseits der Machbarkeit ±
Idealtypische Herausforderungen tiefgreifender
unternehmerischer Wandelprozesse aus einer
systemisch-relational-konstruktivistischen
Perspektive'', in SchreyoÈgg, C. und Conrad, P.
(Hrsg), Organisatorischer Wandel und
Transformation, Managementforschung 10, Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
VoÈlpel, S. (2000), ``Ready ± steady ± know! Knowledge
management @ speed creates the preconditions for
the new economy'' (in German), in Fit for Success.
The best Management Career Energizer,
SuÈddeutsche Zeitung, Personnel, September, p. 2.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Mark Loon. 2017. Knowledge management practice system: Theorising from an international meta-standard. Journal of
Business Research . [Crossref]
2. Palaniappan Saravanan, Arumugam Vasumathi. A Study of the Human-Resource Practices and Challenges Confronted by
Human-Resource Experts in an Indian IT Firm, Bangalore 77-98. [Crossref]
3. Erivan Souza da Silva Filho, Davi Viana, Jacilane Rabelo, Tayana Conte. Linking Knowledge Mapping and Lessons Learned
in a Research and Development Group: A Pilot Study 200-224. [Crossref]
4. Yu-Min Wang, Yao-Ching Wang. 2016. Determinants of firms' knowledge management system implementation: An empirical
study. Computers in Human Behavior 64, 829-842. [Crossref]
5. Trevor Downes, Teresa Marchant. 2016. The extent and effectiveness of knowledge management in Australian community
service organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:1, 49-68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Michael Preece. Managing Information and Knowledge in Service Industries 3-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
7. Antonio Aragón Sánchez, Gregorio Sánchez Marín, Arleen Mueses Morales. 2015. The mediating effect of strategic human
resource practices on knowledge management and firm performance. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa
24:3, 138-148. [Crossref]
8. Mine Afacan Fındıklı, Ugur Yozgat, Yasin Rofcanin. 2015. Examining Organizational Innovation and Knowledge Management
Capacity The Central Role of Strategic Human Resources Practices (SHRPs). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 181,
377-387. [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)

9. Jen-Te Yang. 2015. Effect of internal marketing on knowledge sharing and organisational effectiveness in the hotel industry.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26:1-2, 76-92. [Crossref]
10. Hyun-Sook Lee. 2014. Knowledge Management Activity and Performance of University Hospital Employees. Health Policy
and Management 24:3, 291-300. [Crossref]
11. Keng-Boon Ooi. 2014. TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis. Expert Systems with
Applications 41:11, 5167-5179. [Crossref]
12. Hanna Moon, Chan Lee. 2014. The Mediating Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Processes on Organizational Cultural Factors
and Knowledge Management Effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly 26:4, 25-52. [Crossref]
13. Katherine M. Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson-Manheim, Kevin Crowston, Chei Sian Lee. 2013. Participation in ICT-Enabled
Meetings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 23:2, 15-36. [Crossref]
14. Soon-Ki Jeong, Jong-Chang Ahn, Byung-Ho Rhee. 2013. Knowledge Transfer Activation Analysis: Knowledge Trade
Perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems 53:3, 47-55. [Crossref]
15. Aarnout Brombacher, Eva Hopma, Ashwin Ittoo, Yuan Lu, Ilse Luyk, Laura Maruster, Joël Ribeiro, Ton Weijters, Hans
Wortmann. 2012. Improving Product Quality and Reliability with Customer Experience Data. Quality and Reliability
Engineering International 28:8, 873-886. [Crossref]
16. Esmaei Shaabani, Heidar Ahmadi, HamidReza Yazdani. 2012. Do interactions among elements of knowledge management
lead to acquiring core competencies?. Business Strategy Series 13:6, 307-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Mohammadbashir Sedighi, Fardad Zand. Knowledge management: Review of the Critical Success Factors and development
of a conceptual classification model 1-9. [Crossref]
18. Mohamed Amine Chatti. 2012. Knowledge management: a personal knowledge network perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management 16:5, 829-844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Natalie M. Waters, Mario G. Beruvides. 2012. An Empirical Study of Large-Sized Companies With Knowledge Work Teams
and Their Impacts on Project Team Performance. Engineering Management Journal 24:2, 54-62. [Crossref]
20. Hua Yang, Peng Chen, Yong Xu. 2012. Facilitating knowledge sharing in a Chinese consulting company. Journal of Technology
Management in China 7:2, 198-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Michel Plaisent, Lassana Maguiraga, Prosper Bernard, Sylvain Favreau, Diane Mercier. Community of practice mediated by
Internet: The case of Philanthropy-Quebec 145-148. [Crossref]
22. Sajjad M Jasimuddin, Nigel Connell, Jonathan H Klein. 2012. Knowledge transfer frameworks: an extension incorporating
knowledge repositories and knowledge administration. Information Systems Journal 22:3, 195-209. [Crossref]
23. M. A. Chatti, U. Schroeder, M. Jarke. 2012. LaaN: Convergence of Knowledge Management and Technology-Enhanced
Learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 5:2, 177-189. [Crossref]
24. Carlos Macías Gelabert, Allan Aguilera Martinez. 2012. Contribución de la gestión de recursos humanos a la gestión del
conocimiento. Estudios Gerenciales 28:123, 133-148. [Crossref]
25. Alejandro Frank, Márcia Echeveste. 2012. Knowledge transfer between NPD project teams. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management 29:3, 242-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 26. Mum Wai Yip, Alex Hou Hong Ng, Dominic Hoe Chai Lau. 2012. Employee Participation: Success Factor of Knowledge
Management. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 262-264. [Crossref]
27. Elham Salimi, Vahab VahdatZad, Farshid Abdi. 2012. Key dimensions to Deploy a knowledge management system in an
Iranian firm, a case study. Procedia Technology 1, 268-274. [Crossref]
28. Carolina López-Nicolás, Ángel L. Meroño-Cerdán. 2011. Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance.
International Journal of Information Management 31:6, 502-509. [Crossref]
29. Chee‐Yang Fong, Keng‐Boon Ooi, Boon‐In Tan, Voon‐Hsien Lee, Alain Yee‐Loong Chong. 2011. HRM practices and
knowledge sharing: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower 32:5/6, 704-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Annette M. Mills, Trevor A. Smith. 2011. Knowledge management and organizational performance: a decomposed view.
Journal of Knowledge Management 15:1, 156-171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Changiz Valmohamma. 2010. Investigation and Assessment of Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management
Implementation in Iranian Small-to-Medium Sized Enterprises. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:19, 2290-2296. [Crossref]
32. Ferhan Cebi, Onur Feray Aydin, Sitki Gozlu. 2010. Benefits of Knowledge Management in Banking. Journal of Transnational
Management 15:4, 308-321. [Crossref]
33. Jie Xue, Zhengang Zhang. Research on the Relationship between Knowledge Management Infrastructure, Knowledge Sharing
and Knowledge Management Performance 1-4. [Crossref]
34. Jen-Te Yang. 2009. Individual attitudes to learning and sharing individual and organisational knowledge in the hospitality
industry. The Service Industries Journal 29:12, 1723-1743. [Crossref]
35. Paul Davidson, Jillian Rowe. 2009. Systematising knowledge management in projects. International Journal of Managing
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)

Projects in Business 2:4, 561-576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

36. Mahmoud Migdadi. 2009. Knowledge management enablers and outcomes in the small‐and‐medium sized enterprises.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 109:6, 840-858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Seong-Hee Kim, Hyung-Mi Lee. 2009. The Study on the Digital Media Literacy for Knowledge Sharing. Journal of
Information Management 40:1, 47-67. [Crossref]
38. David Joaquin Delgado-Hernandez, Kuan Yew Wong, Sonia De-La-Torre-Rivera, Nelly Rigaud-Tellez, Jesus Ismael Sanchez
Velarde, Daniela Martinez Gaxiola, Jesus Mario Castro Gutierrez, Efren Ordonez Aguilera, Jessica Fabiola Mendiola. A Case
Study on Knowledge Management Adoption in Mexico 313-316. [Crossref]
39. . Idea Generation Techniques among Creative Professionals 1-10. [Crossref]
40. Kim Seonghee, Ju Boryung. 2008. An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration
in an academic institution. Library & Information Science Research 30:4, 282-290. [Crossref]
41. Robert J. Harris. 2008. Developing a collaborative learning environment through technology enhanced education (TE3)
support. Education + Training 50:8/9, 674-686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Feng-Yang Kuo, Mei-Lien Young. 2008. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention: A test of competing
models. Computers in Human Behavior 24:6, 2697-2722. [Crossref]
43. Abdulaziz O. Alsadhan, Mohamed Zairi, Kay Hooi Alan Keoy. 2008. From P Economy to K Economy: An empirical study
on knowledge-based quality factors. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19:7-8, 807-825. [Crossref]
44. Martyn Pitt, Jason MacVaugh. 2008. Knowledge management for new product development. Journal of Knowledge Management
12:4, 101-116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Feng-Yang Kuo, Mei-Lien Young. 2008. A study of the intention–action gap in knowledge sharing practices. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:8, 1224-1237. [Crossref]
46. Cindy Wang‐Cowham. 2008. The effect of individual factors on the transfer of human resource management knowledge in
Chinese subsidiaries. Journal of Technology Management in China 3:2, 224-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Carolina L, Mero. Strategic KM, Innovation and Performance 811-816. [Crossref]
48. Iain L. Densten. How climate and leadership can be used to create actionable knowledge during stages of mergers and
acquisitions 93-117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
49. Halil Zaim, Ekrem Tatoglu, Selim Zaim. 2007. Performance of knowledge management practices: a causal analysis. Journal
of Knowledge Management 11:6, 54-67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Mariyam Suzy Adam, Cathy Urquhart. 2007. IT capacity building in developing countries: A model of the Maldivian tourism
sector. Information Technology for Development 13:4, 315-335. [Crossref]
51. Siu Loon Hoe. 2007. Organisational Learning: Conceptual Links to Individual Learning, Learning Organisation and
Knowledge Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 06:03, 211-217. [Crossref]
52. Nilmini Wickramasinghe, Elie Geisler. Epistemetrics: Conceptual Domain and Applications of Knowledge Management (Km)
in Health Care 1056-1061. [Crossref]
 53. Sven C. Voelpel, Heinrich von Pierer, Christoph K. Streb. 2006. Mobilizing organizations for innovation and value creation:
an integrated model of the mobile company. Journal of Knowledge Management 10:6, 5-21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Khalid Al-Mabrouk. Critical Success Factors Affecting Knowledge Management Adoption: A Review of the Literature 1-6.
[Crossref]
55. Ahmed Belaid Kridan, Jack Steven Goulding. 2006. A case study on knowledge management implementation in the banking
sector. VINE 36:2, 211-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Gustavo Seijo. 2005. Rhizomes for Understanding the Production of Social Science. Organization Management Journal 2:3,
183-200. [Crossref]
57. Mike C Jackson. 2005. Reflections on knowledge management from a critical systems perspective. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 3:4, 187-196. [Crossref]
58. Petros Belsis, Spyros Kokolakis, Evangelos Kiountouzis. 2005. Information systems security from a knowledge management
perspective. Information Management & Computer Security 13:3, 189-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall. 2005. An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge‐management adoption
in the SME sector. Journal of Knowledge Management 9:3, 64-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Sven C. Voelpel, Zheng Han. 2005. Managing knowledge sharing in China: the case of Siemens ShareNet. Journal of Knowledge
Management 9:3, 51-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall. 2005. Knowledge Management: Case Studies in SMEs and Evaluation of an Integrated
Approach. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 04:02, 95-111. [Crossref]
62. Kuan Yew Wong. 2005. Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises.
Downloaded by University of Florida At 11:45 21 November 2017 (PT)

Industrial Management & Data Systems 105:3, 261-279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Sven C. Voelpel, Marius Leibold, Christoph K. Streb. 2005. The innovation meme: Managing innovation replicators for
organizational fitness. Journal of Change Management 5:1, 57-69. [Crossref]
64. Lisa Soon, Yi-Ping Phoebe Chen, Alan Underwood. 2004. Knowledge Creation in Export Trading. Journal of Information
& Knowledge Management 03:04, 297-316. [Crossref]
65. Sven C. Voelpel †, Marius Leibold, Eden B. Tekie. 2004. The wheel of business model reinvention: how to reshape your
business model to leapfrog competitors. Journal of Change Management 4:3, 259-276. [Crossref]
66. Sven C. Voelpel ‡, Marius Leibold, Khalid M. Mahmoud. 2004. The organizational fitness navigator: enabling and measuring
organizational fitness for rapid change. Journal of Change Management 4:2, 123-140. [Crossref]
67. Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall. 2004. A Fundamental Framework for Knowledge Management Implementation in SMEs.
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 03:02, 155-166. [Crossref]
68. Wolfgang Scholl, Christine König, Bertolt Meyer, Peter Heisig. 2004. The future of knowledge management: an international
delphi study. Journal of Knowledge Management 8:2, 19-35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Roni Reiter-Palmon, Jody J. Illies. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 15:1, 55-77. [Crossref]
70. Sven C. Völpel. 2002. Strategic intellectual capital creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 3:2, 118-127. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
71. 2002. Siemens takes a grass‐roots approach to knowledge management. Human Resource Management International Digest
10:2, 12-14. [Abstract] [Full Text]
72. Carolina López-Nicolás, Ángel L. Meroño-Cerdán. A Model for Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Audits
819-835. [Crossref]
73. Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson, David Tweed. HRM Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: 167-183. [Crossref]
74. Hesham Magd, Mark McCoy. Knowledge Management 127-156. [Crossref]
75. Fakhraddin Maroofi. Strategic Knowledge Management, Innovation, and Performance 4709-4719. [Crossref]
76. Jamie O’Brien. Lessons from the Private Sector 173-198. [Crossref]
77. Katherine M. Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson-Manheim, Kevin Crowston, Chei Sian Lee. Participation in ICT-Enabled
Meetings 192-214. [Crossref]
78. Jamie O'Brien. Lessons from the Private Sector: 476-500. [Crossref]
79. Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson, David Tweed. HRM Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: 1507-1523. [Crossref]