Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05

A Survey on Approaches in Knowledge Audit in

Organizations
Noraini Che Pa, Laleh Taheri and Rusli Abdullah
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
University Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
norainip@fsktm.upm.edu.my, laleh.taheri@gmail.com, and rusli@fsktm.upm.edu.my

 factors[6]. Chong stated five preliminary success factors for

Abstract— Knowledge Audit (KA) is one of the important
issues in Information Systems and specifically Knowledge
Management (KM). It is used in the examination and evaluation
process for knowledge resources in the organization. KA is a
useful technique for monitoring knowledge management on
quality issues such as completeness, effectiveness and accuracy.
Numerous studies have been conducted and many tools have
been developed to assist Knowledge Audit process, each viewing
the issues from different aspects. This study investigates KA
framework, models, methodologies, processes, techniques and
other issues based on a systematic literature review approach.
This provides an obvious circumstance of the KA and its issues
that need to be catered in the future. The result indicates that KA
requires critical consideration to look for on several limitations
and issues.
Index Terms— Knowledge Audit, Knowledge Management,
Knowledge Audit in organization.
I. INTRODUCTION
nowledge is defined as value-added and actionable
K information[1] which allows forecasting and decision
making. To name some specifications, it is somewhat:
unstructured, intuitive, difficult to communicate with and
express in words[2], it lies in conversations, connections and
experiences and it highly depends on the owner[3]. Some
studies have tried to classify it into different types[4]:
 Tacit vs. explicit
 Formal vs. informal
 Codified vs. personalized
 Internal vs. external
 Short life cycle vs. permanent
Knowledge is becoming an important asset of organizations
by emergence of knowledge economy[5]. Therefore, each
organization needs to manage its owning knowledge
effectively. This results in an accurate image of tacit and
explicit knowledge, better understanding of knowledge
creation process and also knowledge sharing. All benefits of
KM leads organizations to gain competitive advantages [6]. A
KM process consists of planning, technique, resources,
process of knowledge transformation and environmental
effective KM implementation: business strategy,
organizational structure, Knowledge Management Team,
Knowledge Map and Knowledge Audit (KA). KA is assumed
as one of the most important and preliminary steps of KM
implementation [7][8][9][10]. KA is considered as a tool for
monitoring knowledge management effectiveness[11]. On the
other hand there is another view which says knowledge map
as well as taxonomy as the outcome of KM life-cycle and the
role of KA is to determine whether and to what extend that
objective is achieved[4]. KA must identify important
information regarding what knowledge does the organization
already have, what knowledge the organization lacks, who
needs this knowledge and how they can use the knowledge[6].
KA is used in various areas including organizations, industry,
and education. There are various definitions on KA. Mostly,
process elements of KA are assumed as the beginning steps
for KM implementations, which provide a continuous
feedback for implementation, a circular and dynamic process
and a scientific evaluation and analysis of organization (e.g.
knowledge assets, knowledge strategies and policies,
knowledge structure, and knowledge category). It also
determines the organizational knowledge (e.g. lacks, needs,
and how to use this knowledge) and outcomes while
considering the opportunities and threats [7].
KA involves in the discovering, analyzing, measuring and
evaluating an organization’s knowledge asset[12].Its process
consists of analyzing the current conditions and mechanisms
of organizational knowledge, and reporting if any knowledge
gap is identified. The gap will represent the differences of
current knowledge needs in comparison to future ones [13]. A
lot of researchers state that KA is important and has become
one of success factors for effective KM implementation. This
study intends to discuss different practices, issues and
challenges of KA based on the previous work done by
researchers.
Though, all studies agree on the importance of KA but there
is no consensus on the model, methodology and processes
involved in their implementation. For this reason this paper
aims to do research of KA from 2005 until 2012 including
their models, methods, processes, tools, techniques,
advantages, challenges and limitations.
The paper is organized as follows: the second section
presents the systematic literature review research methodology

November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions 1

 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05
and discusses the results of the study regarding the current
approaches (e.g. model, methodologies, process, and tools)
and issues related to challenges of KA. Third section presents
the discussion part. Finally, the study is concluded and
implications of the review are identified in the last section.
II. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
This study is investigating the approaches of KA in
organizations. The importance of applying KA in
organizations has been highlighted by most
researchers[14][15][16][17][11][6]. There are various steps
that need to be followed to identify, address and document KA
issues in the studies:
1. Identifying the information about processes, models,
methods, tools, techniques and frameworks.
2. Identifying the people involved in KA and their roles.
3. Discussing the challenges of KA and its impact on the
organization.
4. Reporting the findings.
These steps are taken based on a systematic review of
previous studies, conducted in order to arrange a summary and
to report the relevance of information. The systematic review
involves three main phases namely planning, conducting and
reporting[18]. These main phases are illustrated in Figure. 1.
Phase 1:
Planning
Phase 2:
Conducting
Phase 3:
Reporting
Figure 1: SLR phases
A. Planning the Review
The most common activities in the planning phase are
clarifying research questions, developing and validating
review protocols. The process of validating review protocol
involves setting the conditions and primary studies. For
validating the protocols there are several ways such as
executing a pilot test, informal reviewing and conducting
formal review [19].
While our study is generally about the practices of KA, we
have declared some research questions:
RQ1. What are the main practices of KA (processes, models,
methods, frameworks, tools and techniques)?
RQ2. In what fields Knowledge Audit has been conducted and
used?
RQ3. Who are involved in KA?
RQ4. What are the advantages and benefits of KA for an
organization?
RQ5. What are the current challenges and limitations of KA in
November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions
organizations?
This study involves researches and practices on KA
discussed by researchers from 2005 to 2011 in journals,
conference proceedings and online databases of KM. Our
validation approach considers some informal review and
factors such as citation metrics and popularity.
B. Conducting the Review
During the conducting phase several activities are
involved such as relevant research identification, primary
studies selection, quality assessment of previous studies,
required data extraction and data synthesis[18].
The first step was to find relevant articles of journals that
involves ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct
Elsevier, and Springer link (refer Table 1).
TABLE 1 DOCUMENT SOURCES
Types Title
Journal Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication
Journal of Knowledge Management
Journal of Management Information System
Journal of Universal computer Science
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Knowledge Management Research &
Practice
Journal of knowledge management practice
Knowledge and Process Management
Conference 2009 International Conference on Management and
Proceeding Service Science
2008 4th International Conference on Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile
Computing
2011 International Conference on Research and
Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS),
2006 European and Mediterranean Conference on
Information Systems (EMCIS)
Proceeding of the 28th international conference on
Software engineering - ICSE '06
Online www.interscience.wiley.com (Wiley online library)
Databases http://dl.acm.org/ (ACM digital library)
http://scholar.google.com/ (Google Scholar)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/ (Science Direct)
In the second step, we search the related articles from list of
considered issues namely primary studies based on keywords.
By primary studies we meant the papers that have been
referred. An example of the keywords used was: “Knowledge
Management AND Audit”. Table 2 shows the list keywords
for searching articles.
2
 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05

TABLE 2 SEARCHED KEYWORDS Audit method [25]

No. Keywords Practices Applied business patterns for data gathering and
1. Knowledge Management AND Audit (Processes data analysis of Knowledge Audit [11]
2. Knowledge AND Audit activities and
3. Knowledge Audit Culture) Investigated the importance of tacit perception in
4. Knowledge Audit processes Knowledge Management. Audit [15]
5. Knowledge Audit models, methodologies
6. Knowledge Audit tools and techniques Applied Knowledge Audit on special children (SC)
7. Knowledge Audit results and benefits communities [28]
8. Challenges of Knowledge Audit Tool and Used Meta-Matrix analysis to evaluate Knowledge
9. Organizational Knowledge AND Audit technique Audit results [26]
10. Knowledge sharing Explored Measurement tool for knowledge
management performance[5]
Used a diagnostic tool for material Knowledge
These searched keywords were looked up in the title,
Audit (key business processes) [17]
abstract and keywords. The next step was to assess the quality Applied Real-life practice of Knowledge Audit in
of each study. Although there is no known universal definition two organizations and Knowledge Audit
and implication to measure the quality of study, but in contribution and comparison using automated
different cases, different ways could be used such as Knowledge Audit tool [8]
establishing quality criteria based on data completeness or Used Knowledge Audit to construct a
appropriateness and authenticity [19]. This study selects the questionnaire [27]
Highlighted Knowledge Audit concepts, processes,
suitable and related articles for assuring the quality of the
approaches, tools, metrics, also scorecard
paper. The process of data extraction involves identifying methodology and SNA [13]
various issues such as models, framework, methodologies and Considered Knowledge Audit as a tool of
etc. Based on our extraction, different issues in Knowledge knowledge management to examine knowledge
Audit are shown in Table 3. management capability using AHP and fuzzy
evaluation [15]
TABLE 3: TOPICS STUDIED IN KNOWLEDGE AUDIT
Types Description Figure 2 shows the frequency of topics in KA. The result
Model proposed a holistic view of KM and implement a shows that most common topics discussed are methodology
KM audit model to help organizations portraying and tools, and techniques.
knowledge assets and assessing their use toward an
organization’s goal [20]
proposed a model based on introduced concept of
knowledge capital [6]

compared and analyzed existing models through

their life cycle and propose a flexible model
adaptable to different business environment [21]

Framework discussed a framework based on processes and

mentioned core processes and support processes
[7]
considered Knowledge Audit as a means of
knowledge management capability evaluation [12]
proposed a Knowledge Audit framework based on
Figure 2: Bar chart; frequency of K.A. topics
taxonomy [4]
C. Reporting the Review
Methodology implemented a comparative study between two
When the review was completed, we documented the results
different methodologies [9]
Implemented a systematic approach (not too based on the research questions answered. Next, we validated
general) [16] the report via an external validation. There are two general
proposed a cyclic methodology focusing on core methods for validation; one of which is to use an external
processes [22] validator and the other is to submit to a peer-reviewed
used a mixed-method including qualitative and journal[19]. Each of the papers we studied belongs to an
quantitative techniques of data collection for accredited journal which also satisfies the second validator.
Knowledge Audit in library [23]
described methods, processes and results of
Knowledge Audit, map and finally provided an Frameworks Methods and Models for Knowledge Audit
action plan [24] The main components of KA are defined in[17] as the
proposed action-oriented and contextual following: Knowledge need analysis, Knowledge inventory
methodology [14] analysis, Knowledge flow analysis and Knowledge mapping.
Compared and integrated 13 Knowledge Audit They performed KA by utilizing the above four steps in
methods and presenting a reference Knowledge

November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions 3

 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05
sequence. Some shortcomings were discovered in previous
KA methodologies in [22]. The shortcomings are as listed
below:
- Lack of clear strategy to find the exact place of
initiating KA.
- Lack of measurement criteria.
- Lack of applying those methodologies in order to
detect the problems as well as opportunities.
In [22] the researcher proposed a framework consisting of
ten stages. The stages are identifying organization objectives
and process, identifying organization’s core processes,
prioritize and select organization’s core processes, identify
key people, meeting key people, knowledge inventory,
knowledge flow, knowledge mapping, auditing reporting and
knowledge re-auditing. This framework highlights the
importance to determine the core processes, and re-auditing
process. Besides that, it concerns on key people involved and
cultural issues of the organization during the KA process.
Furthermore, a support tool was introduced for each stage in
assisting the implementation.
In [16] the researcher proposed a framework composed of
eight steps which are: orientation and background studies,
cultural assessment, in-depth investigation, building
knowledge inventory and knowledge mapping, knowledge
network analysis, recommendation of KM strategy, deploying
KM tools and building collaborative culture, and the last phase
is re-audit for measuring success of the KM implementation.
This framework tries to address the shortcomings of some
existing KA approaches, which practical value are limited for
real-life implementation of KM initiative. The beneficial of
this framework includes consideration on KM needs,
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and risks.
In [12] the researcher proposed a framework in order to
describe the KM capability in their re-established triplet KM
system. This framework consists of knowledge environment,
knowledge process and knowledge capability and shows that
KA is an effective and practical mean for continuously
improving KM capability. This framework concentrates on the
important role of KA in KM capability and does not provide
detailed explanation of KA processes and activities.
The framework proposed in [4] consists of four main steps
such as knowledge map creation; knowledge taxonomy;
knowledge SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) and knowledge mobilization. This
framework pays a considerable amount of attentions to
knowledge map and taxonomy.
In [7] the researcher proposed a process-based framework
for KM audit based on processes which consists of three main
parts: enterprise’s knowledge and its practices or basic
activities, core processes of KM audit, and support processes
of KM audit. Core processes of KM audit are Knowledge
Management Environment Audit (KM.EA), Knowledge Asset
Audit (KAA), Knowledge Management Capacity Audit
(KM.CA), and Knowledge Management Performance Audit
(KM.PA). Support processes of knowledge management audit
are defined as Knowledge Management System Standards,
November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions
Enterprise culture leads, and Knowledge Management Tool
Support. The advantage of this framework is the fine
classification of the processes and clear definition. The aim of
each process is declared in details; however there is not
enough explanation on KA implementation based on this
model.
Lee et al. [14] introduced an audit methodology which tries
to make it action-oriented and contextual[14], namely
STOCKS (Strategic Tools to Capture Critical Knowledge and
Skills). This methodology also has various useful stages
including recommendations, but it is not cyclic and continuous
which could be considered as a disadvantage of the
methodology. Nevertheless, the most significant characteristic
of this methodology is that it considers practical stages that
should be done in the implementation.
In [20] a KM Audit model was proposed for providing an
accurate illustration of organization’s knowledge strategies
and assets. This model considers socio-technical enablers,
knowledge processes and knowledge stocks as core of KM
while pays attention to KM drivers (environmental factors)
and outcomes. The model also indicates that KM is driven by
its environment. It points towards an important issue in KA,
which discusses the concept of contingency that states there is
no single solution in all situations. The researcher also
mentioned the dynamic nature of knowledge processes.
Although he developed KA in real-life practice, the model
appears lacking of details of KA implementation.
Wu and Li [6] proposed a rocket-shaped model for KA
implementation which is composed of three main audits
based: knowledge capitals (asset, human), structure
(organizational structure) and external(organizations). Their
model is data pivotal as the processes in their model is mostly
about data collection, processing and analysis. This rocket-
shaped model is said to be a complete model but there are
some limitations such as less consideration over the
organizational culture, no real-life practical implementation
and model development limitation due to a variety of
methodologies. The significant of this model however is the
introduction of the capital concept.
Ganasan and Dominic [9] derived a hybrid model based on
a comparison, which is scoped to core processes and also
approaches that involve KM development and
recommendation. The six stages are listed below:
1. Information and culture assessment
2. Core process prioritization
3. Knowledge health measurement
4. Knowledge Audit reporting
5. Knowledge management strategies recommendation
6. Continuous re-auditing
Processes and Activities of Knowledge Audit
Different authors mentioned various processes in order to
develop KA as shown in Table 4.
4
 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05

TABLE 4: KNOWLEDGE AUDIT PROCESSES KA is implemented in four phases including: knowledge need
No. Researchers Processes analysis; knowledge inventory analysis; knowledge flow
1. Planning analysis and knowledge mapping [28].
2. Data collection
WU[6] 3. Data processing Each phase consists of several activities such as background
1. study, draft initial knowledge need/inventory/flow matrices
(2008) 4. Data analysis
5. Reporting and knowledge map, verifying knowledge
6. Summary need/inventory/flow matrices and knowledge map and
1. Knowledge acquisition reporting. KA was implemented in governmental environment
2. Knowledge storage and recognized the following local knowledge processes such
Jiuling[7]
2. 3. Knowledge sharing
(2010)
4. Knowledge transfer
as transfer lessons, gather intelligence, share tacit knowledge
5. Knowledge application and look for ideas[20].
1. Knowledge Audit Steps
2. Knowledge Audit Techniques Techniques and Tools for Knowledge Audit
3.
3. Knowledge Audit Methods Several existing techniques and tools can be utilized during
4. Knowledge Audit Tools the KA process and implementation. Concerning this, it is a
1. Knowledge analysis vital issue to select and determine the right tool and that will
2. Knowledge inventory analysis
4. Rahman[8] effect on the end-results [11]. Common techniques of KA
3. Knowledge mapping
(2011) represented by most researchers are questionnaires,
4. Competency analysis
1. Mapping core business activities interviews, surveys, workshops, focus groups, site
2. Key knowledge gap identification observation, document studies and narration techniques,
5. 3. Knowledge sharing activity control Social network analysis (SNA), meta-matrix and Software
4. Knowledge issues identification agents[1],[30],[17],[13],[28].
5. Drafting suitable initiatives
1. Knowledge need analysis
Sukiam [28] 2. Knowledge inventory analysis Advantages of Knowledge Audit
6. The importance of KA as the first step of knowledge
(2009) 3. Knowledge flow analysis
4. Knowledge mapping management process and activity is its ability to picture
1. Lessons transformation accurate identification, qualification, measurement and
2. Intelligence gathering assessment of both tacit and explicit knowledge of the
Handzic [20]
7. 3. Tacit knowledge sharing organization, and knowledge networks inside the organization.
(2008)
4. Idea lookup
Other advantages of KA are knowledge prioritization, and gap
identification. The output of KA can also be used as a
Herman Schimmel simply stated that questionnaires is the measurement tool for knowledge asset and also training need
first step of KA. In order to picture the current status of analysis [8]. Available, required and missing knowledge
knowledge, behavior, and attitude of knowledge workers, this identification as well as knowledge management strategy
step is needed which is followed by interviews and then recommendations are also mentioned as benefits of KA [28].
analysis[27]. It can be assumed that data gathering is actually Besides the above benefits two more can be mentioned based
considered as the first step of KA processes. on the findings in [29]:
WU and LI have gone through more details and suggested 1. KA provides a better understanding of knowledge
six processes in their rocket-shaped model which are: creation process and
planning; data collection; data processing; data analysis; 2. KA is a tool for Knowledge transfer evaluation.
reporting and summary[6]. On the other hand, Jiuling et. al Furthermore, KA helps to recognize the organizations
considered knowledge as the main factor in KA processes and readiness for knowledge management implementation and will
introduced knowledge acquisition, knowledge storage, identify the challenges and problems of KM implementation
knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer and knowledge before falling into them without preparation[25]. KA is a
application as processes involved in KA [7]. success factor and an important tool for KM effectiveness
A. Rahman et al. [8] introduced four steps in KA: monitoring[11] and demonstrating its ability to shareholders
implementing KA; data acquisition techniques; analysis [6].
methods and tools. They studied two Malaysian organization’s
Challenges and Limitations of Knowledge Audit
KA processes and recognized two different set of processes in
Various challenges have been recognized by different
each organization; one of them followed these steps:
researchers in KA. Most of the problems are regarding the
knowledge analysis, knowledge inventory analysis, knowledge
lack of the following:
mapping and competency analysis. They listed mapping core
business activities, key knowledge gap identification,  Culture assessment; in order to evaluate the readiness of
knowledge sharing activity control, knowledge issues organization.
identification and at last drafting suitable initiatives for the  A clear strategy for starting KA.
other organization [8].  the degree of significance of the things being audited.
In some cases such as developing KA on special children,  Measurement criteria; to find out the impact of

November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions 5

 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05

knowledge management processes. the organization culture is that knowledge consumption is

 Knowledge network analysis; to determine knowledge preferred by employees rather than knowledge construction,
acquisition methods. which leads to natural bias[30].
 Recommendations based on KA report. On the other hand, selection methods, processes and
 Test for finding problems or opportunities[9]. involvement of team members in KA contribute to be
successful factors and guarantee for the KA performance [5].
Ganasan and Dominic proposed a model in order to solve Besides that, justifying the reasons and benefits of KA in an
the above issues. KA activities are also challenged in terms of organization for employees can be considered as an important
return rate and superficial answers considering data gathering success factor, in order to improve the organizational culture
techniques, missed or overlooked issues and time-consuming and increase the cooperation of employees. Leadership,
nature of the activity especially when it does not involve measurement and technology also play a considerable role in
automatic tools. Return rate shows the participation of staff KA success [20].
and affects knowledge health, while superficial answers may
lead to bias in results[8]. The KA was implemented in various
organization such as government agencies, telecommunication
industries and IT services (refer Table 5). Some other
challenges during KA implementation are organizational
culture, teamwork, trust among employees and
motivation[13]. It is clear that most researchers claim cultural
barriers as the challenge to their work on KA. The problem of
TABLE 5. SUMMARIZATON OF KNOWLEDGE AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION

Organization Goals(Usage of KA) Actor

Government sector - to address and solve the problem on lacking double-loop Executive officers
learning
- for investigating on knowledge maintenance and as a
General Manager, Owner
KM tool
Telecommunication - to measure performance and effectiveness of KM Managers
Industry
Manufacturing - to cater the issues on culture assessment, the degree of Employees and managers
industries significance, measurement criteria, K-network analysis
in KM
- to recognize how Malaysian organizations put in
Staff, group of focus group
practices.
Transportation - to propose a systematic approach on an overall Knowledge workers (senior train controller
sector framework and customized tool (STC), train controllers (TC), communication
coordinator (CC), main control system controller
(MCSC) and engineering coordinators (EC)
IT services - to use as a diagnostic tool for material of KA Clients

Advanced managers, personnel (IT and Human

- for studying the relation between KA and KM capability
Resource Management)
- as taxonomy and knowledge map of KM life-cycle.
- to check KM capability factors and comprehensive Managers
evaluation (fuzzy and AHP)
Manager (General, IT and Human Resource
Management (HRM))
Education - to checks for appropriateness of a mixed-method for Librarians
data collection (quantitative-qualitative techniques)
- for investigating the relation of virtual and face to face
Staff, ICT coaches and teachers
networking with knowledge creating and sharing
- for specifying knowledge requirements of special
children (SC) communities Parents, Educators, Medical Experts and
Researchers

November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions 6

 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05
III. DISCUSSION
Different approaches have been introduced to implement
KA practically. In recent years, some of the researchers have
proposed various specific steps in their complex and advanced
models and frameworks but have limitations during KA
implementation. During the implementation of KA, there are
three steps should be considered[10].:
1. Identifying currently existing knowledge in the targeted
area
2. Identifying missed knowledge in the targeted area
3. Preparing recommendations to managers for possible
improvements
Comparing different researchers’ attitude, most of the KA
models focus on a specific orientation including: data, process,
core process, knowledge types or categories, knowledge
management culture[31] and some expert integrate a number
of the above issues into a mixed view to propose their model
or approaches. For example, in [8] expressed different KA
models and methodologies in various fields such as processes
of data gathering, analysis, tools and people involvement.
Generally, a KA framework consists of processes used to
guide the planning, and executing the audit of knowledge
resources. Most of the authors have introduced a model and
framework or simply introduced a tool or some processes for
KA but very general and have limited practical value for real-
life [21]. For example, a systematic approach of KA has been
proposed by [31] which involved a KA culture assessment in
the model but not practically involved.
IV. CONCLUSION
Due to the increasing importance of knowledge in recent
years and in knowledge based economics, considerable
amount of attentions have been drawn to knowledge
management. KA is agreed by most of researchers to be one of
the most important and even considered as the first step of
KM. Most of the researchers agree that KM successful
implementation is closely related to a comprehensive KA. KA
can enhance KM capability by using evaluating index system.
Besides understanding and picturing the current state of
organizational knowledge, KA can be used as an indicator to
identify the readiness of an organization to implement KM.
Referring to the studies, KA could result in knowledge map in
some cases, and most importantly, could be helpful in creating
recommendations for organizational improvements. In future
will be conducting a survey to identify the measurement
criteria to discover the impact of knowledge management
process.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge supports by Faculty of
Computer Science & Information Technology, Universiti
Putra Malaysia and our parents.
November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions
REFERENCES
[1] P. Datta and W. Acar, “Software and human agents in Knowledge
Codification,” Knowledge Management Research & Practice, vol.
8, no. 1, pp. 45–60, Mar. 2010.
[2] C. F. Cheung, W. B. Lee, W. M. Wang, Y. Wang, and W. M.
Yeung, “A multi-faceted and automatic knowledge elicitation
system (MAKES) for managing unstructured information,” Expert
Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 5245–5258, May
2011.
[3] R. Abdullah, M. H. Selamat, S. Sahibudin, and R. A. Alias, “A
Framework For Knowledge Management System Implementation In
Collaborative Environment For Higher Learning Institution,” no.
March, pp. 4–7, 2005.
[4] R. S. Sharma, M. Chia, V. Choo, and E. Samuel, “Using A
Taxonomy For Knowledge Audits : Some Field Experiences,” vol.
11, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2010.
[5] C. W. Chong and S. C. Chong, “Knowledge management process
effectiveness: measurement of preliminary knowledge management
implementation,” Knowledge Management Research & Practice,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 142–151, Jun. 2009.
[6] Y.-L. Wu and Y.-H. Li, “Research on the Model of Knowledge
Audit,” 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, pp. 1–4, Oct.
2008.
[7] X. Jiuling and W. Jiankang, “Enterprise Knowledge Management
Audit based on Processes : Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework,” no. 2007, pp. 940–945, 2010.
[8] N. S. A. Rahman, A.A.; Shukor, “Knowledge Audit Process - Tales
of Two Organizations,” in Research and Innovation in Information
Systems (ICRIIS), 2011 International Conference on , vol., no.,
pp.1-5, 23-24 Nov. 2011, 2011.
[9] P. D. D. Ganasan, A.; Dominic, “Knowledge Audit Made
Comprehensive thru 6 Stages,” in Research and Innovation in
Information Systems (ICRIIS), 2011 International Conference on ,
vol., no., pp.1-6, 23-24 Nov. 2011, 2011.
[10] J. Liebowitz, B. Rubenstein-Montano, D. McCaw, J. Buchwalter, C.
Browning, B. Newman, and K. Rebeck, “The knowledge audit,”
Knowledge and Process Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–10, Jan.
2000.
[11] E. Gourova and Y. Todorova, “Knowledge audit data gathering and
analysis,” Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Pattern
Languages of Programs - EuroPLoP ’10, p. 1, 2010.
[12] B. Suo, J. Wang, and H. Zhang, “Primarily Research on Knowledge
Audit for Evaluating Enterprise Knowledge Management
Capability,” 2009 International Conference on Management and
Service Science, pp. 1–5, Sep. 2009.
[13] E. Gourova, “Knowledge audit concepts , processes and practice
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics Centre for Information
Society Technologies,” vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 605–619, 2009.
[14] W. B. Lee, V. Shek, and B. Cheung, “Auditing and Mapping the
Knowledge Assets of Business Processes – An Empirical Study 1
Background of the Study,” pp. 11–16, 2007.
7
 Asian Transactions on Computers (ATC ISSN: 2221-4275) Volume 02 Issue 05

[15] S. U. O. Baimin and W. Jiabin, “The Fuzzy Evaluation on [31] S. Y. Choy, “A Systematic Approach for Knowledge Audit
Enterprise Knowledge Management Capability based on Knowledge Analysis: Integration of Knowledge Inventory , Mapping and
Audit,” pp. 792–796, 2013. Category: A,” vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 674–682, 2004.

[16] C. F. Cheung, M. L. Li, W. Y. Shek, W. B. Lee, and T. S. Tsang, “A

systematic approach for knowledge auditing: a case study in
transportation sector,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 11,
no. 4, pp. 140–158, 2007.

[17] R. Sharma and N. Chowdhury, “On The Use Of A Diagnostic Tool

For Knowledge Audits,” vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2007.

[18] P. Brereton, B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, and M.

Khalil, “Lessons from applying the systematic literature review
process within the software engineering domain,” vol. 80, pp. 571–
583, 2007.

[19] P. Brereton, B. a. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, and M.

Khalil, “Lessons from applying the systematic literature review
process within the software engineering domain,” Journal of
Systems and Software, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 571–583, Apr. 2007.

[20] M. Handzic, A. Lagumdzija, and A. Celjo, “Auditing knowledge

management practices: model and application,” Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 90–99, Mar.
2008.

[21] S. M. Drus and S. S. Shariff, “Analysis of Knowledge Audit Models

via Life Cycle Approach,” vol. 16, pp. 176–180, 2011.

[22] A. Perez-soltero, M. Barcelo-valenzuela, G. Sanchez-schmitz, F.

Martin-rubio, J. T. Palma-mendez, and A. A. Vanti, “A Model and
Methodology to Knowledge Auditing Considering Core Processes,”
pp. 7–23, 2007.

[23] Z. H. Al-omari and M. S. Ahmad, “Knowledge Audit for

References and Customer Services Unit at UNITEN Library,” no.
November, 2011.

[24] S. Burnett, L. Illingworth, and L. Webster, “Knowledge auditing

and mapping: a pragmatic approach,” Knowledge and Process
Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 25–37, Jan. 2004.

[25] T. Levantakis, R. Helms, and M. Spruit, “Developing a Reference

Method for Knowledge Auditing,” pp. 147–159, 2008.

[26] R. Dattero, S. D. Galup, and J. “Jim” Quan, “The knowledge audit:

Meta-Matrix analysis,” Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 213–221, Aug. 2007.

[27] A. H. Schimmel, “The use of a knowledge audit in educational

organizations: constructing a questionnaire,” no. June, pp. 1–16,
2006.

[28] A. S. Sukiam, A. A. Rahman, and W. Z. Abidin, “Knowledge Audit

on Special Children Communities,” pp. 198–207, 2009.

[29] M. a. Mearns and a. S. a. du Toit, “Knowledge audit: Tools of the

trade transmitted to tools for tradition,” International Journal of
Information Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 161–167, Jun. 2008.

[30] M. Levy, I. Hadar, S. Greenspan, and E. Hadar, “Uncovering

cultural perceptions and barriers during knowledge audit,” Journal
of Knowledge Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 114–127, 2010.

November 2012 ATC-30229351©Asian-Transactions 8