Knowledge management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Not to be confused with Content management or Information management.

Knowledge management (KM) is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing
the knowledge and information of an organization.[1] It refers to a
multidisciplinary approach to achieve organisational objectives by making the best
use of knowledge.[2]

An established discipline since 1991,[citation needed] KM includes courses taught

in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, library,
and information sciences.[3][4] Other fields may contribute to KM research,
including information and media, computer science, public health and public policy.
[5] Several universities offer dedicated master's degrees in knowledge management.

Many large companies, public institutions and non-profit organisations have

resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their business
strategy, IT, or human resource management departments.[6] Several consulting
companies provide advice regarding KM to these organizations.[6]

Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational objectives such as

improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons
learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organisation.[7] These
efforts overlap with organisational learning and may be distinguished from that by
a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and on
encouraging the sharing of knowledge.[2][8] KM is an enabler of organizational
learning.[9][10]
Contents

1 History
2 Research
2.1 Dimensions
2.2 Strategies
2.3 Motivations
3 KM technologies
4 Knowledge barriers
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

History

Knowledge management efforts have a long history, including on-the-job discussions,

formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional
training, and mentoring programs.[2][10] With increased use of computers in the
second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as
knowledge bases, expert systems, information repositories, group decision support
systems, intranets, and computer-supported cooperative work have been introduced to
further enhance such efforts.[2]

In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced; it refers to the
management of knowledge at the individual level.[11]

In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognised the importance of

knowledge management dimensions of strategy, process and measurement.[12][13] Key
lessons learned include people and the cultural norms which influence their
behaviors are the most critical resources for successful knowledge creation,
dissemination and application; cognitive, social and organisational learning
processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and
measurement, benchmarking and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning
process and to drive cultural change.[13] In short, knowledge management programs
can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organisations if they are
purposeful, concrete and action-orientated.
Research

KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 1990s.[14] It was initially

supported by individual practitioners, when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden
as the world's first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO).[15] Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly
of CIBC, Canada), started investigating KM long before that.[2] The objective of
CKOs is to manage and maximise the intangible assets of their organizations.[2]
Gradually, CKOs became interested in practical and theoretical aspects of KM, and
the new research field was formed.[16] The KM idea has been taken up by academics,
such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi
University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York
University).[3][17]

In 2001, Thomas A. Stewart, former editor at Fortune magazine and subsequently the
editor of Harvard Business Review, published a cover story highlighting the
importance of intellectual capital in organizations.[18] The KM discipline has been
gradually moving towards academic maturity.[2] First, is a trend toward higher
cooperation among academics; single-author publications are less common. Second,
the role of practitioners has changed.[16] Their contribution to academic research
declined from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009.[19]
Third, the number of academic knowledge management journals has been steadily
growing, currently reaching 27 outlets.[20]

Multiple KM disciplines exist; approaches vary by author and school.[16][21] As the

discipline matured, academic debates increased regarding theory and practice,
including:

Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge

sharing and creation.[22][23]
Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be designed to
facilitate knowledge processes best.[6]
Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and
environmental factors as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem.[24]
[25]

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM roughly include

people/culture, processes/structure and technology. The details depend on the
perspective.[26] KM perspectives include:

community of practice[27]
social network analysis[28]
intellectual capital[29]
information theory[14][15]
complexity science[30]
constructivism[31][32]

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned[33] with

action research suggested as having more relevance[34] and the need to translate
the findings presented in academic journals to a practice.[12]
Dimensions

Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge

exist.[10] One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge
distinguishes tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.[30] Tacit knowledge
represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware
of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum,
explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in
mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[16][35]
The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi.

Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI, for Socialisation, Externalisation,

Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between
explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.[36] In this model, knowledge follows a
cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and
explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.[36]

Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two
different perspectives.[37] The content perspective suggests that knowledge is
easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective
recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make
knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.
[37]

Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to
internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from
the KM effort.[6][38]

Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and

explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of
explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.[11] Specifically, for knowledge to be
made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside our
heads).[11][39] More recently, together with Georg von Krogh and Sven Voelpel,
Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about
knowledge conversion forward.[4][40]

A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes

embedded knowledge of a system outside a human individual (e.g., an information
system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from embodied knowledge
representing a learned capability of a human body's nervous and endocrine systems.
[41]

A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new

knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established
knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.[37][42] Collaborative
environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools
can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.[42]
Strategies

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related

activities.[29] Organisations have tried knowledge capture incentives, including
making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance
measurement plans.[43] Considerable controversy exists over whether such incentives
work and no consensus has emerged.[7]

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy).[7][44] In

such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a
shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge
they need that other individuals have provided (codification).[44]

Another strategy involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts

associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy).[7][44] In
such an instance, expert individual(s) provide insights to requestor
(personalisation).[30]

Hansen et al. defined the two strategies.[45] Codification focuses on collecting

and storing codified knowledge in electronic databases to make it accessible.[46]
Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge.[47] In
contrast, personalisation encourages individuals to share their knowledge directly.
[46] Information technology plays a less important role, as it only facilitates
communication and knowledge sharing.

Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:[7][24]

[30]

Knowledge sharing (fostering a culture that encourages the sharing of

information, based on the concept that knowledge is not irrevocable and should be
shared and updated to remain relevant)
Make knowledge-sharing a key role in employees' job description
Inter-project knowledge transfer
Intra-organisational knowledge sharing
Inter-organisational knowledge sharing
Knowledge retention also known as Knowledge Continuation: activiities
addressing the challenge of knowledge loss as a result of people leaving[48][49]
[50]
Mapping knowledge competencies, roles and identifying current or future
predicted gaps.
Defining for each chosen role the main knowledge that should be retained,
and building rituals in which the knowledge is documented or transferred on, from
the day they start their job.
Transfer of knowledge and information prior to employee departure by means
of sharing documents, shadowing, mentoring, and more,
Proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either
conducive or obstructive to knowledge sharing)
Storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)
Cross-project learning
After-action reviews
Knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible
by all)
Communities of practice
Expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts)
Expert systems (knowledge seeker responds to one or more specific questions to
reach knowledge in a repository)
Best practice transfer
Knowledge fairs
Competency-based management (systematic evaluation and planning of knowledge
related competences of individual organisation members)
Master–apprentice relationship, Mentor-mentee relationship, job shadowing
Collaborative software technologies (wikis, shared bookmarking, blogs, social
software, etc.)
Knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc.)
Measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making explicit
knowledge for companies)
Knowledge brokers (some organisational members take on responsibility for a
specific "field" and act as first reference on a specific subject)
Knowledge farming (Using note-taking software to cultivate a knowledge graph,
part of Knowledge Agriculture)

Motivations

Multiple motivations lead organisations to undertake KM.[35] Typical considerations

include:[30]

Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision

of products and services
Achieving shorter development cycles
Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning
Leveraging expertises across the organisation
Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals
Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant
insights and ideas appropriate to their work
Solving intractable or wicked problems
Managing intellectual capital and assets in the workforce (such as the
expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals or stored in repositories)

KM technologies

Knowledge management (KM) technology can be categorised:

Groupware—Software that facilitates collaboration and sharing of organisational

information. Such applications provide tools for threaded discussions, document
sharing, organisation-wide uniform email, and other collaboration-related features.
Workflow systems—Systems that allow the representation of processes associated
with the creation, use and maintenance of organisational knowledge, such as the
process to create and utilise forms and documents.
Content management and document management systems—Software systems that
automate the process of creating web content and/or documents. Roles such as
editors, graphic designers, writers and producers can be explicitly modeled along
with the tasks in the process and validation criteria. Commercial vendors started
either to support documents or to support web content but as the Internet grew
these functions merged and vendors now perform both functions.
Enterprise portals—Software that aggregates information across the entire
organisation or for groups such as project teams.
eLearning—Software that enables organisations to create customised training and
education. This can include lesson plans, monitoring progress and online classes.
Planning and scheduling software—Software that automates schedule creation and
maintenance. The planning aspect can integrate with project management software.
[22]
Telepresence—Software that enables individuals to have virtual "face-to-face"
meetings without assembling at one location. Videoconferencing is the most obvious
example.
Semantic technology such as ontologies—Systems that encode meaning alongside
data to give machines the ability to extract and infer information.[51]

These categories overlap. Workflow, for example, is a significant aspect of a

content or document management systems, most of which have tools for developing
enterprise portals.[7][52]

Proprietary KM technology products such as Lotus Notes defined proprietary formats

for email, documents, forms, etc. The Internet drove most vendors to adopt Internet
formats. Open-source and freeware tools for the creation of blogs and wikis now
enable capabilities that used to require expensive commercial tools.[34][53]

KM is driving the adoption of tools that enable organisations to work at the

semantic level,[54] as part of the Semantic Web.[55] Some commentators have argued
that after many years the Semantic Web has failed to see widespread adoption,[56]
[57][58] while other commentators have argued that it has been a success.[59]
Knowledge barriers

Just like knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, the term "knowledge barriers"
is not a uniformly defined term and differs in its meaning depending on the author.
[60] Knowledge barriers can be associated with high costs for both companies and
individuals.[61][62][63]
See also

Archives management
Customer knowledge
Dynamic knowledge repository
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
Ignorance management
Information governance
Information management
Journal of Knowledge Management
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice
Knowledge cafe
Knowledge community
Knowledge ecosystem
Knowledge engineering
Knowledge management software
Knowledge modeling
Knowledge transfer
Knowledge translation
Legal case management
Personal knowledge management

References

Girard, John P.; Girard, JoAnn L. (2015). "Defining knowledge management: Toward an
applied compendium" (PDF). Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management. 3 (1):
14.
"Introduction to Knowledge Management". www.unc.edu. University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill. Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved 11
September 2014.
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company" (PDF). Harvard Business
Review. 69 (6): 96–104.
Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009). "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge
Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation
Theory". Organization Science. 20 (3): 635–652. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412.
Bellinger, Gene. "Mental Model Musings". Systems Thinking Blog. Retrieved 18 April
2013.
Addicot, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006). "Networks, Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks". Public Money & Management.
26 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2006.00506.x.
Gupta, Jatinder; Sharma, Sushil (2004). Creating Knowledge Based Organizations.
Boston: Idea Group Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59140-163-6.
Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge Management Systems: Information And Communication
Technologies for Knowledge Management (3rd edition). Berlin: Springer. ISBN
9783540714088.
Sanchez, R (1996) Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management, Wiley, Chichester
Sanchez, R. (1996). Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley.
Wright, Kirby (2005). "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual
knowledge worker performance". Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 3 (3):
156–165. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500061.
Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008). "The relevance of knowledge
management and intellectual capital research" (PDF). Knowledge and Process
Management. 15 (4): 235–246. doi:10.1002/kpm.314.
Morey, Daryl; Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham, Bhavani (2002). Knowledge Management:
Classic and Contemporary Works. MIT Press. p. 451. ISBN 978-0-262-13384-5.
McInerney, Claire (2002). "Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of
Knowledge". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
53 (12): 1009–1018. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.114.9717. doi:10.1002/asi.10109.
"Information Architecture and Knowledge Management". Kent State University.
Archived from the original on June 29, 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
Bray, David (May 2007). "SSRN-Literature Review – Knowledge Management Research at
the Organizational Level". SSRN 991169.
Davenport, Tom (2008-02-19). "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?".
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
Stewart, Thomas A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations.
Crown Business Publishers. ISBN 978-0385483810.
Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie, Timothy
(2010). "A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic literature (1994–2008)" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 14 (1):
13–23. doi:10.1108/13673271011015534.
Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2017). "Global Ranking of Knowledge Management
and Intellectual Capital Academic Journals: 2017 Update" (PDF). Journal of
Knowledge Management. 21 (3): 675–692. doi:10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0490.
Langton Robbins, N. S. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (Fourth Canadian Edition).
Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). "Knowledge management systems: issues,
challenges, and benefits". Communications of the AIS. 1 (2).
Rosner, D.; Grote, B.; Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke, O. (1998). "From natural
language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering
approach". In Borghoff, Uwe M.; Pareschi, Remo (eds.). Information technology for
knowledge management. Springer Verlag. pp. 35–51.
Bray, David (2007-05-07). "SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for
Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent Environments". SSRN 984600.
Carlson Marcu Okurowsk, Lynn; Marcu, Daniel; Okurowsk, Mary Ellen. "Building a
Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory" (PDF).
University of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2012.
Retrieved 19 April 2013.
Spender, J.-C.; Scherer, A. G. (2007). "The Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge
Management: Editors' Introduction". Organization. 14 (1): 5–28.
doi:10.1177/1350508407071858. SSRN 958768.
"TeacherBridge: Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice" (PDF). Virginia
Tech. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 18 April
2013.
Groth, Kristina. "Using social networks for knowledge management" (PDF). Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual
Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-513866-5.
Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing – Paradox and Descriptive Self
Awareness". Journal of Knowledge Management. 6 (2): 100–111. CiteSeerX
10.1.1.126.4537. doi:10.1108/13673270210424639.
Nanjappa, Aloka; Grant, Michael M. (2003). "Constructing on constructivism: The
role of technology" (PDF). Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in
Education. 2 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-12-17.
Wyssusek, Boris. "Knowledge Management - A Sociopragmatic Approach (2001)".
CiteSeerX. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
Ferguson, J. (2005). "Bridging the gap between research and practice". Knowledge
Management for Development Journal. 1 (3): 46–54. doi:10.1080/03057640500319065.
Andriessen, Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual
capital research". The Learning Organization. 11 (4/5): 393–401.
doi:10.1108/09696470410538288.
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues". MIS
Quarterly. 25 (1): 107–136. doi:10.2307/3250961. JSTOR 3250961.
Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press. pp. 284. ISBN 978-0-19-509269-1.
Hayes, M.; Walsham, G. (2003). "Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational
perspective". In Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A. (eds.). The Blackwell Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 54–77.
ISBN 978-0-631-22672-7.
"Rhetorical Structure Theory Website". RST. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick (2004). "Meta-review of knowledge management and
intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity
rankings" (PDF). Knowledge and Process Management. 11 (3): 185–198.
doi:10.1002/kpm.203. hdl:11375/17698. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-
26.
Nonaka, I.; von Krogh, G. & Voelpel S. (2006). "Organizational knowledge creation
theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances" (PDF). Organization Studies. 27
(8): 1179–1208. doi:10.1177/0170840606066312.
Sensky, Tom (2002). "Knowledge Management". Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 8
(5): 387–395. doi:10.1192/apt.8.5.387.
Bray, David A. (December 2005). "SSRN-Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge
Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing
Environmental Turbulence by David Bray". Papers.ssrn.com. SSRN 961043.
Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). "Empirical research in information systems:
The practice of relevance". MIS Quarterly. 23 (1): 3–16. doi:10.2307/249403. JSTOR
249403.
"Knowledge Management for Data Interoperability" (PDF). Retrieved 18 April 2013.
Hansen et al., 1999
Smith (2004), p. 7
Hall (2006), pp. 119f
Liebowitz, J. (2008). Knowledge retention: strategies and solutions. CRC Press
DeLong, D. W., & Storey, J. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an
aging workforce. Oxford University Press
Levy, Moria (2011). "Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss".
Journal of Knowledge Management. 15 (4): 582–600. doi:10.1108/13673271111151974.
ISSN 1367-3270.
Davies, John; Grobelnik, Marko; Mladenić, Dunja, eds. (2009). Semantic Knowledge
Management: Integrating Ontology Management, Knowledge Discovery, and Human
Language Technologies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88845-1. ISBN
9783540888444. OCLC 312625476.
Rao, Madanmohan (2005). Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques. Elsevier. pp. 3–
42. ISBN 978-0-7506-7818-6.
Calvin, D. Andrus (2005). "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive
Intelligence Community". Studies in Intelligence. 49 (3). SSRN 755904.
Capozzi, Marla M. (2007). "Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology".
First Monday. 12 (6). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i6.1871.
Berners-Lee, Tim; Hendler, James; Lassila, Ora (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web A
new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution
of new possibilities". Scientific American. 284 (5): 34–43.
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34. Archived from the original on April 24,
2013.
Bakke, Sturla; ygstad, Bendik (May 2009). "Two emerging technologies: a comparative
analysis of Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web". CONF-IRM 2009 Proceedings (28). "Our
research question is: how do we explain the surprising success of Web 2.0 and the
equally surprising non-fulfillment of the Semantic Web. Building on a case study
approach we conducted a in depth comparative analysis of the two emerging
technologies. We propose two conclusions. First, traditional top-down management of
an emerging global technology has proved not to be effective in the case of the
Semantic Web and Web 2.0, and second, the success for such global technologies is
mainly associated with bootstrapping an already installed base."
Grimes, Seth (7 January 2014). "Semantic Web business: going nowhere slowly".
InformationWeek. Retrieved 5 September 2017. "SemWeb is a narrowly purposed replica
of a subset of the World Wide Web. It's useful for information enrichment in
certain domains, via a circumscribed set of tools. However, the SemWeb offers a
vanishingly small benefit to the vast majority of businesses. The vision persists
but is unachievable; the business reality of SemWeb is going pretty much nowhere."
Cagle, Kurt (3 July 2016). "Why the Semantic Web has failed". LinkedIn. Retrieved 5
September 2017. "This may sound like heresy, but my personal belief is that the
semantic web has failed. Not in "just give it a few more years and it'll catch on"
or "it's just a matter of tooling and editors". No, I'd argue that, as admirable as
the whole goal of the semantic web is, it's just not working in reality."
Zaino, Jennifer (23 September 2014). "The Semantic Web's rocking, and there ain't
no stopping it now". dataversity.net. Retrieved 5 September 2017. "Make no mistake
about it: The semantic web has been a success and that's not about to stop now.
That was essentially the message delivered by W3C Data Activity Lead Phil Archer,
during his keynote address celebrating the semantic web's ten years of achievement
at last month's Semantic Technology & Business Conference in San Jose."
Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2011). Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Barriers-Three Blurry Terms in KM. Proceedings of the European Conference
on Knowledge Management, ECKM, 10(1), 81–91
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp. 221 & 276-289. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080547367
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18–35.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746

Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 48–67.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728231

External links
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Knowledge management
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Knowledge management.

Knowledge management at Curlie