See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363300015

The ISO 30401 Knowledge Management Systems: a new frame for managing
knowledge. Conceptualisation and practice

Article  in  Knowledge Management Research & Practice · September 2022

DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2022.2118637

CITATIONS READS

0 115

5 authors, including:

Daniela Carlucci Dmitry Kudryavtsev

Università degli Studi della Basilicata Digital City Planner Oy
68 PUBLICATIONS   1,568 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francesco Santarsiero
Università degli Studi della Basilicata
11 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Theorizing Knowledge Visualization as a discipline: review of current research endeavours View project

Quality Assurance in Higher Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesco Santarsiero on 09 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Knowledge Management Research & Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tkmr20

The ISO 30401 Knowledge Management

Systems: a new frame for managing knowledge.
Conceptualisation and practice

Daniela Carlucci, Dmitry Kudryavtsev, Francesco Santarsiero, Rosaria

Lagrutta & Achille Claudio Garavelli

To cite this article: Daniela Carlucci, Dmitry Kudryavtsev, Francesco Santarsiero, Rosaria Lagrutta
& Achille Claudio Garavelli (2022): The ISO 30401 Knowledge Management Systems: a new frame
for managing knowledge. Conceptualisation and practice, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2022.2118637

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2118637

Published online: 05 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tkmr20
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2118637

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The ISO 30401 Knowledge Management Systems: a new frame for managing
knowledge. Conceptualisation and practice
Daniela Carluccia, Dmitry Kudryavtsevb, Francesco Santarsieroc, Rosaria Lagruttaa and Achille Claudio Garavellid
a
Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures, Environment, and Cultural Heritage, University of Basilicata, Italy; bGraduate
School of Management, St. Petersburg University, Russia; cDepartment of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Economics, University of
Basilicata, Italy; dDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics and Management, Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The implementation of ISO Knowledge Management (KM) standard is gaining increasing Received 30 April 2022
attention among practitioners and scholars and it is bringing out several issues to Accepted 17 August 2022
investigate, such as reasons and ways of “standardizing” KM systems, and risks, challenges KEYWORDS
and benefits of implementing the standard. Drawing on a review of the literature on ISO ISO 30401:2018; ISO
standard for KM, the paper provides a conceptualisation of ISO KM standard through 9001:2015; mapping;
some conceptual and mind maps that systematise and combine the KM requirements of knowledge management
ISO. Such conceptualisation offers a fresh and comprehensive view of key factors, vari­ systems; Knowledge
ables, and dimensions that an organisation needs to consider in order to design and Management
implement a KM system consistent with the ISO KM standard. Moreover, based on the
literature review results, the study sheds light on risks, challenges and benefits, connected
to the implementation of ISO 30401 in organisations and identifies future areas of
investigation.

1. Introduction
Knowledge became the key resource in the contempor­
ary economy. To be competitive and survive in the
knowledge economy, companies must be more and
more knowledge-driven, and to continuously improve
the way they create value and make wealth out of
knowledge. They need to nurture key capabilities such
as acquiring new knowledge, applying up-to-date
knowledge, retaining current knowledge and handling
outdated or invalid knowledge (e.g., Carlucci et al.,
2004; Lam et al., 2021; Lin & Tseng, 2005; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995, 2007, 2019; Soto-Acosta & Cegarra-
Navarro, 2016; Takeuchi & Shibata, 2006). This requires
systematic and strategic management of knowledge
(e.g., Carayannis et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2020;
Ioannis & Belias, 2020; Schiuma et al., 2012).
Nowadays, managing knowledge has become very chal­
lenging, as knowledge is more and more abundant,
global, complex, connected, deeper and open (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 2019) and digital technologies and digital
transformations, respectively, offer and require innova­
tive and faster ways of mobilising and managing knowl­
edge. Despite this, the strategic relevance of knowledge
and its management remain unquestionable. The rela­
tively recent inclusion of Knowledge Management
(KM) within the ISO 9001:2015 further proves the
importance of KM. In 2015 for the first time, one of
the global business standards explicitly mentioned
knowledge as a resource and specified expectations for
the management of that resource, thus providing
a long-awaited level of legitimacy for KM (Fry, 2015).
More recently, ISO 30401 set requirements (ISO 30401,
2018) provided guidelines for establishing, implement­
ing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective
management system for KM in organisations (ISO
30401, 2018). The purpose of ISO 30401 is to help
organisations: i) design and implement a knowledge
management system (KMS) that facilitates value crea­
tion through knowledge, ii) become competent to audit,
certify, evaluate and iii) being recognised internally and
externally as capable KM organisations (ISO 30401,
2018). The ISO 30401 aims to help organisations stan­
dardise their KM actions and systems in order to enable
and improve value-creation from knowledge.
Companies are starting to implement ISO KMS
requirements. However, the implementation of ISO
30401 standard seems still surrounded by uncertainties
(Maximo et al., 2020) and scarcely investigated.
As highlighted by Maximo et al. (2020) publications
that deal with the ISO 30401 standard in the scientific
bases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct) are
still very few. This is understandable to some extent, as
the standard has been approved few years ago.
Regardless, the application of standards for KM is
gaining increasing attention among consultants, certi­
fication bodies, and widely, practitioners. However, as

CONTACT Daniela Carlucci daniela.carlucci@unibas.it Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures, Environment, and Cultural Heritage
University of Basilicata, Via Lanera, 20 75100 Matera, Italy
© 2022 The Operational Research Society
2 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.
pointed out by some scholars (Boyes, 2018; Maximo
et al., 2020), the implementation of standards for KMS
is not straightforward and requires a clear understand­
ing of several issues, among them: how should
a company implement ISO standard for KM? what
are the risks, challenges and benefits of the
implementation?
Drawing on a review of the literature on ISO stan­
dard for KMS, the paper provides a conceptualisation
of ISO KM standard through some conceptual and
mind maps that systematise and combine the KMS-
Requirements from ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 30401
standards. Such conceptualisation offers a fresh and
comprehensive view of key factors, variables, and
dimensions that an organisation needs to take into
account to design and implement a KMS consistent
with ISO standard requests. The maps make the
articulated body of ISO requirements and statements
more immediately intelligible for managers as well as
for practitioners involved in certification. Moreover,
based on the literature review results, the study sheds
light on risks, challenges and benefits, connected to the
implementation of ISO standard.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2, first
provides a review of literature on ISO standard for
KM, then briefly analyses the main contents of ISO
9001:2015 and ISO 30401 standard requirements and
provides, through visual mapping, a clear graphical
conceptualisation of ISO requirements for the devel­
opment of a KMS. Then, section 3 describes a list of
potential difficulties and/or benefits associated with
the implementation of the standard, derived from
literature review on ISO 30401. Finally, in Section 4,
conclusions and avenues for future research are
presented.
2. ISO standards: a new frame for KM
2.1. ISO 30401 standard for KM: a literature
review
ISO management system standards were conceived to
support organisation in continuous performance
improvement. The standards set out requirements or
guidance to help organisations manage their policies
and processes to accomplish specific objectives and
create an organisational culture that engages in
a continuous cycle of self-evaluation, correction and
improvement of operations and processes.
Nowadays, the application of ISO management
system standards involves a wide range of manage­
ment areas and practices, such as quality management
(ISO 9001), environmental management (ISO 14001),
the prevention of occupational hazards and the provi­
sion of health and safety regulations in the workplace
(OHSAS 18000), corporate social responsibility (SA
8000), the effective, efficient, and acceptable use of
information technology (IT) within organisations
(ISO/IEC 38500:2015), the cybersecurity (ISO/IEC
27032).
Recently the development of management stan­
dards encompassed also the KM field. The ISO
9001:2015 and, particularly the ISO 30401:2018, pro­
vided guidelines for establishing, implementing, main­
taining, reviewing and improving an effective
management system for KM in organisations (ISO
30401, 2018). These standards are not a standard
approach to KM, but a standardised set of require­
ments and statements for effective management of
knowledge The application of standards for KM is
gaining increasing attention among practitioners and
certification bodies. Moreover, the “standardisation”
of KMSs has begun capturing researchers’ attention.
However, as already pointed out, to date scholarly
papers that deal with the ISO 30401 standard are still
very few (Maximo et al., 2020). They address various
features regarding the application of the standard.
Collison et al. (2019), in their book “The KM
Cookbook: Stories and Strategies for Organisations
Exploring Knowledge Management Standard ISO
30401”, provide a “menu” of success stories and stra­
tegies for organisations interested in ISO 30401 KM
Standard, whether organisations intend to achieve
certification, or simply use ISO as a framework to
revise their existing programme and strategy. The
scholars illustrate the standard by exploring 16 differ­
ent examples of KM in practice around the world.
Kudryavtsev and Sadykova (2019) investigate how
to embed KM requirements of ISO into frameworks
for enterprise architecture modelling and manage­
ment. The scholars analyse KM-oriented enterprise
modelling frameworks and compare them against
ISO requirements. The comparison demonstrates
fragmented support of ISO requirements for oriented
enterprise modelling approaches.
Maximo et al. (2020), through an exploratory
descriptive study based on an integrative literature
review, describe the difficulties of the adoption of
ISO 30401 and propose solutions for effective imple­
mentation and use of ISO standard guidelines for KM
in organisations.
Herdmann (2020) focuses on the link between ISO
for KM and risk management.
The scholar recommends to apply “ISO 31000:2018
Risk Management – Guidelines” to determine risks
and opportunities requested by ISO 30401:2018, that
need to be addressed to assure that KMS can achieve
its intended results. He suggests a road map for mana­
ging knowledge risk and highlights some aspects to
remember in order to effectively determine risks and
opportunities.
Pawlowsky et al. (2021), analyse how the ISO 30401
relates to the theoretical origins of KM and Intellectual
Capital research and provides directions for its further

operationalisation by certification bodies and imple­
mentation by managers. Moreover, the scholars theo­
rise how the ISO 30401 industry standard and
certification may contribute to value creation, indicat­
ing possible management initiatives and applications
to create value.
About the ISO 30401 application, Boonchan, G.,
Sinthamrongruk, T. & Khamaksorn, A. (2022.
Knowledge Management in the Royal Thai Army:
ISO30401 (2018)) analyse the requirement of a KMS
in ISO 30401 in order to advise the Royal Thai Army
(RTA) of the mechanism to implement such a system
in the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) project. The
scholars identify the critical knowledge factors that
influence the development of a KMS and apply them
to a framework for the Royal Thai Army (RTA) based
on the KMS requirements in ISO 30401.
Boonchan, G., Sinthamrongruk, T. & Khamaksorn,
A. (2022. Knowledge Management in the Royal Thai
Army: ISO30401 (2022)) uses the ISO KMS –
Requirements Standard 30,401 as a framework for
explaining how radical KM and creativity are already
a part of KM. According to the scholar the radical KM
results from the integration of art, artistic attitudes,
and creative practice into knowledge work/processes.
The analysis of the studies on ISO 30401 reveals
that to date the research is still in its infancy and well-
defined mainstreams have yet to emerge. However, it
seems possible to identify two categories of studies.
The first one includes researches aimed to provide
directions and approaches to implement ISO 30401
in KM practices (e.g., Boonchan, G., Sinthamrongruk,
T. & Khamaksorn, A. (2022. Knowledge Management
in the Royal Thai Army: ISO30401, 2018); Collison
et al., 2019; Pawlowsky et al., 2021), and the second
one refers to studies that investigate how ISO KM
standard requirements can be used for explaining or
modelling specific management issues (e.g., Barnes,
2022; Kudryavtsev & Sadykova, 2019).
In the following, a brief analysis of the main con­
tents of ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 30401:2018 standards
requirements is presented. Then, a conceptualisation
of ISO KM standard through some conceptual and
mind maps that systematise and combine KM require­
ments of ISO, is provided.
2.2. Analysis and mapping of KM-oriented
requirements in ISO standards
The purpose of the “ISO management system standard
for knowledge management is to support organiza­
tions to develop a management system that effectively
promotes and enables value-creation through knowl­
edge” (ISO 30401, 2018). It uses the same high-level
structure of other ISO management system standards,
such as the ISO 9001:2015 Quality management sys­
tems – Requirements and ISO 14001:2015
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 3
Environmental management systems. The structure
utilises common text, terms, and definitions, which
according to ISO can help organisations, that operate
a single or integrated management system, meet the
requirements of two or more management system
standards simultaneously. To date, KM-related ISO
requirements are provided in ISO 9001:2015 and ISO
30401:2018.
The ISO 9001 was revised in 2015. The revised
standard ISO 9001:2015 includes the new clause 7.1.6
Organisational knowledge. The requirements of this
clause are: “Determine the knowledge necessary for
the operation of its processes and to achieve confor­
mity of products and services. This knowledge shall be
maintained and made available to the extent neces­
sary. When addressing changing needs and trends, the
organization shall consider its current knowledge and
determine how to acquire or access any necessary
additional knowledge and required updates. NOTE
1: Organizational knowledge is knowledge specific to
the organization; it is generally gained by experience.
It is information that is used and shared to achieve the
organization’s objectives. NOTE 2: Organizational
knowledge can be based on: a) Internal Sources (e.g.,
intellectual property, knowledge gained from experi­
ence, lessons learned from failures and successful pro­
jects, capturing and sharing undocumented
knowledge and experience; the results of improve­
ments in processes, products and services); b)
External Sources (e.g., standards, academia, confer­
ences, gathering knowledge from customers or exter­
nal providers)” (ISO 9001:2015, 2015; p. 13). Referring
to the clause 7.1.6, Nick Milton of Knoco Limited
pointed out that “this new clause is not a Knowledge
Management standard, nor does it require an organi­
zation to have Knowledge Management in place as
a formal requirement. As a clause in a quality stan­
dard, it simply requires that sufficient attention is paid
to knowledge to ensure good and consistent quality of
goods and services” (Fry, 2015, p. 3).. Table 1 reports
a text analysis of clause 7.1.6 in ISO 9001–2015.
ISO 30401:2018 “Knowledge management sys­
tems – Requirements” was published in
November 2018. Several KM principles lead these
ISO standards, that is, nature of knowledge; value;
focus; adaptive; shared understanding; environment;
culture; iterative. According to the standard, knowl­
edge is “human or organizational asset enabling effec­
tive decisions and action in context . . . the
management with regard to knowledge is knowledge
management” (ISO 30401, 2018, p. 4). The KMS is
“part of a management system with regard to knowl­
edge” (ISO 30401, 2018, p. 5). The management sys­
tem according to ISO 30401 (2018) is “a set of
interrelated or interacting elements of an organization
to establish policies, and objectives and processes to
achieve those objectives” (p. 2). The definition of KMS
4 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.

Table 1. Analysis of clause 7.1.6 Organizational knowledge in KM-oriented enterprise modelling language. Some
ISO 9001:2015. fragments of ISO standards text were considered
Text of the ISO explanatory and were not used for extracting required
standard Required objects Required activities
Determine the Knowledge Determine necessary
concepts (objects and activities).
knowledge Necessary knowledge Required KM-oriented (or knowledge-related) ele­
necessary for the knowledge ments of organisational management system, reported
operation of its Knowledge
processes and to necessary for the in Tables 1 and 2 were arranged in the form of
achieve conformity operation of its a concept map in Figure 1 mind map in Figure 2
of products and [organisation]
services. processes (parts 1 and 2).
Processes The main groups of KM-oriented (or knowledge-
Knowledge
necessary to achieve related) elements systematised in the maps are:
conformity of (1). Organisational and external context for KM
products and
services
and KMS;
Products and (2). Knowledge and its’ status (current and neces­
services sary knowledge; new and outdated; priority);
This knowledge shall Maintain knowledge
be maintained and Make knowledge (3) KM principles;
made available to available (4) Management activities to establish, implement,
the extent
necessary. maintain and continually improve KMS (or any other
When addressing Needs Consider its management system);
changing needs and Trends [organisation]
trends, the Organization current (5) Knowledge management system:
organisation shall Current knowledge knowledge
consider its current Determine how to
knowledge and acquire any
(a) Knowledge development activities;
determine how to necessary (b) Knowledge conveyance and transformation
acquire or access additional types;
any necessary knowledge
additional Determine how to (c) Activities, behaviours, means for knowledge
knowledge and access any development and knowledge conveyance and
required updates. necessary
additional transformation.
knowledge (d) KM enablers.
Determine
required
knowledge The maps shown in Figures 1 and 2 offer
updates
a comprehensive conceptualisation of KM-oriented
ISO requirements that clearly highlights the key fac­
is completed with a note, i.e., “note 1 to entry: The tors, variables, and dimensions to consider in order to
system elements include the organization’s knowledge design and implement a KMS. It can contribute to
management culture, structure, governance and lea­ reduce individuals’ cognitive load and enhance learn­
dership, roles and responsibilities, planning, technol­ ing on the subject, as well as to improve the analysis of
ogy, processes and operation” (ISO 30401, 2018, p. 5). organisational situations and description of activities,
According to ISO 30401 (2018) “the organization problems and projects connected to standards imple­
shall establish, implement, maintain and continually mentation (Balaid, 2012; Balaid et al., 2016; Eppler,
improve a knowledge management system, including 2006; Schiuma & Carlucci, 2015). Indeed, mapping
the strategy, processes needed and their interactions, has two main functions. The first one is the descriptive
in accordance with the requirements of this interna­ function. A map provides a visual representation that
tional standard” (p. 6). ISO 30401:2018 includes KM- can help individuals elaborate a problem statement,
specific part and universal part, that is applicable to avoid unnecessary cognitive work, and, eventually
any management system. The description of a KMS is create possible solutions (Larkin, 1989; Scaife &
a specific part, while management activities, which Rogers, 1996; Vekiri, 2002). The second function is
establish, implement, maintain and continually related to a map as a “thinking tool”. A map can
improve a KMS, are standardised and follow the tem­ support the processes of generation and elaboration
plate from the proposals for management system stan­ of ideas. Mapping is, indeed, a useful tool for opening
dards (see ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 and Consolidated “mind’s eye”.
ISO Supplement, Annexe SL (ISO, 2018). The man­ Conceptualising the KM oriented requirements in
agement activities are: i) context of the organisation; ISO standards through mapping, makes the complex
ii) leadership; iii) planning; iv) support; v) operation; body of ISO requirements and statements more easily
vi) performance evaluation and improvement. Clause and immediately accessible, for managers as well as for
4.4 of the ISO 30401:2018 describes a KMS. In Table 2 practitioners involved in certification and auditing
this clause was used for eliciting the requirements for bodies. It can help managers reflect on real organisation’s
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 5

Table 2. Analysis of clause 4.4 Knowledge management system in ISO 30401:2018.

Text of the ISO standard Required objects and activities
4.4.1 General Establish a KMS
The organisation shall establish, implement, maintain and continually improve a knowledge Implement a KMS
management system, including the processes needed and their interactions, in accordance with the Maintain a KMS
requirements of this document. (Continually) Improve a KMS
4.4.2 to 4.4.4 include requirements, each representing a dimension of the knowledge management system, Dimension of the KMS
which are interdependent. Acknowledging and incorporating these dimensions within the knowledge
management system and putting them in place through a managed change process is required for the
implementation of an effective and holistic knowledge management system within the organisation.
4.4.2 Knowledge development Knowledge development
The organisation shall demonstrate that the knowledge management system covers the following Stages of knowledge development
activities, for effectively managing knowledge through its stages of development through systematic Activities and behaviours
activities and behaviours, supporting the knowledge management system objectives and covering the KMS objectives
prioritised knowledge domains defined in 4.3: Prioritised knowledge domains
a) Acquiring new knowledge: means to provide the organisation with knowledge that was previously New knowledge
unknown or unavailable within the organisation. Acquiring new knowledge
Means
b) Applying current knowledge: means to make knowledge effective, integrating the current relevant Current knowledge
knowledge of the organisation in order to enable improved actions and decision making. Applying current knowledge
Means
c) Retaining current knowledge: means to safeguard the organisation from the risks of knowledge loss. Current knowledge
Retaining current knowledge
Means
d) Handling outdated or invalid knowledge: means to protect the organisation from making mistakes or Outdated knowledge
working inefficiently, as a result of use of knowledge inappropriate within the current organisational Invalid knowledge
context. Handling outdated or invalid
knowledge
Means
4.4.3 Knowledge conveyance and transformation Knowledge conveyance and
The organisational knowledge management system shall include activities and behaviours, supporting all transformation
different types of knowledge flows, through systematic activities and behaviours, supporting the Activities and behaviours
knowledge management system objectives and covering the prioritised knowledge domains defined in Types of knowledge flows
4.3: KMS objectives
Prioritised knowledge domains
a) Human interaction: exchange and co-creation of knowledge through conversations and interactions; Human interaction
between individuals, teams and across the organisation.
b) Representation: making knowledge available through demonstrating, recording, documenting and/or [Knowledge] representation
codifying.
c) Combination: synthesis, curating, formalising, structuring or classifying of codified knowledge, making the [Knowledge] combination
knowledge accessible and findable.
d) Internalisation and learning: reviewing, assessing and absorbing knowledge; incorporating it into [Knowledge] internalisation and learning
practice.
4.4.4 Knowledge management enablers KM enablers
The organisational knowledge management system shall include and integrate elements of all the KMS objectives
following enablers to create an effective knowledge management system. This shall support the Prioritised knowledge domains
knowledge management system objectives and cover the prioritised knowledge domains defined in 4.3:
a) Human capital: roles and accountabilities, including all knowledge management system stakeholders; Human capital
making sure that knowledge management is encouraged within the organisation (covered in detail in Roles and accountabilities
Clause 5). KM stakeholders
b) Processes: defined knowledge activities applied and embedded within organisational processes, Processes
including procedures, instructions, methods and measures (covered in Clause 8). Knowledge activities
Organizational processes
c) Technology and infrastructure: digital channels, virtual and physical workspace and other tools. Technology and infrastructure
Digital channels
Virtual workspace
Physical workspace
d) Governance: Strategy, expectations and means of ensuring the knowledge management system is Governance
working in alignment (covered in detail in Clauses 5 to 10). KM strategy
KM expectations
KM policy (from clause 5.2)
e) Knowledge management culture: Attitudes and norms regarding sharing, learning from mistakes KM culture
(covered in detail in 4.5). Attitudes [regarding sharing, learning
from mistakes . . .]
Norms [regarding sharing, learning
from mistakes . . .]
4.5 Knowledge management culture KM culture
Embedding a knowledge management culture across the organisation is critical for sustained application
of knowledge management. A culture where connections and knowledge activities are encouraged, and
knowledge is valued and actively used, will support the establishment and application of the knowledge
management system within the organisation.
6 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.
Figure 1. Concept map of required KM-oriented elements in organisation according to ISO.
need of implementing ISO standard and drive them in
KMS design and implementation.
3. The implementation of ISO 30401
standards: between benefits and uncertainties
The implementation of ISO standards for KM, and
particularly of the recent ISO 30401, is not straightfor­
ward. It is widely known that the formulation of ISO
standards is a long process that requires several revi­
sions before final approval. Similarly, their implemen­
tation in organisations is not immediate.
Organisations require time to understand and digest
standards requirements. Some scholars (Kudryavtsev
& Sadykova, 2019; Maximo et al., 2020) highlighted
that even though the main aim of ISO 30401 is
improving organisation’s performance by leveraging
the potential value of knowledge, it gives only limited
advice on how to achieve it. The lack of implementa­
tion details, such as guidelines or best practices, makes
it challenging for managers to implement the standard
and to assess KMS against it (Maximo et al., 2020;
Pawlowsky et al., 2021). As highlighted by Wagner
(2020), the standard cites some well-established meth­
ods of KM and provides some suggestions for devel­
oping KM culture, but it does not enucleate what
works under which circumstances, making it difficult
for managers and auditors to assess the quality of

Figure 2. Mind map of required KM-oriented elements in an organisation according to ISO, part 1. Figure 2. Mind map of required
KM-oriented elements in an organisation according to ISO, part 2.
a KMS beyond formal criteria. Certainly, the adoption
of ISO 30401 is voluntary and the main standard’s aim
is not to indicate meticulously how to implement KM.
ISO KM requirements intend to guide the implemen­
tation of a KMS by providing common guidelines and
standard practices for organisation in order to opti­
mise the use of knowledge (ISO 30401, 2018). The
standard suggests what a company must develop to
have an effective KMS and focus on non-conformities
of the system and not on its improvement (Maximo
et al., 2020). Additionally, according to ISO 30401
(2018) an organisation can develop a KMS in line
with its culture, needs and desired results. However,
this remains a challenging task, since each organisa­
tion has its distinctive features, such as structure and
culture, and this makes it difficult to easily and suc­
cessfully frame KM in standardised methods and
requirements (Maximo et al., 2020).
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 7
As previously highlighted, to date the implementa­
tion of ISO KM standard remains still scarcely ana­
lysed in management literature. Some studies analysed
benefits and criticisms of the overall structure and
content of the ISO KM standard requirements
(Corney, 2018; Maximo et al., 2020; Milton &
Lambe, 2016). Other studies investigated some specific
issues of the standard, such as its implications for risk
management (Herdmann, 2020) or enterprise archi­
tecture modelling (Kudryavtsev & Sadykova, 2019).
However, to the best of our knowledge, potential
risks, challenges, and benefits of implementing ISO
KM standard, are still under-investigated.
Focusing on potential risks concerning the imple­
mentation of ISO 30401, Boyes (2018) identified sev­
eral risks such as the risk of low uptake, the risk of low-
quality certification, the risk that organisations imple­
ment the KM standard symbolically rather than
8 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.
Figure 2. (continued.)
meaningfully, the risk that the KM standard is not
specific enough or too specific. According to the scho­
lar, these risks can be mitigated or overwhelmed.
Therefore, the scholar sustains that the risk of low
uptake of ISO 30401 can be mitigated by linking ISO
30401:2018 to ISO 9001:2015, actively encouraging
company’s customers to seek certification against
ISO 30401 and, in the case of companies that specialise
in KM, by setting an example for their customers by
first conducting audits of their own KMS using stan­
dard. About the risks of low-quality certification, or
implementing the standard symbolically rather than
meaningfully, or the presence of the standard not
being specific enough, the scholar argues that these
risks can be addressed through the establishment of
advice and guidance regarding ISO 30401 and its
implementation. In this regard, the author argues
that “this can be achieved through the development
and publication of a range of guidelines and other
standards, and the development and delivery of train­
ing. The guidelines, standards, and training activities
should be coordinated by an organisation that has the
support and participation of the widest range of peo­
ple in the global KM community” (Boyes, 2018).
Arguing about the challenges of implementing ISO
30401, Maximo et al. (2020) state that there are several
challenges making it difficult to adopt standardised
methods for KM, such as “the culture of knowledge,
the continuous involvement of top management, the
awareness of people that knowledge sharing is an
activity that is part of their work routine, . . . the
difficulty to define a standard criterion for establishing
adherence based on isolated items of the standard”
(p. 37,158). The same authors highlight that organisa­
tions that keep information up to date are more likely
to succeed with standards. For these organisations,
KM is a key factor of growth and the systematisation
of KM according to internationally established stan­
dards adds internal benefits and represents
a competitive differential recognised by the market.
Pawlowsky et al. (2021), point out some benefits of
implementing ISO KM standard requirements for
organisations. According to the authors “the new
ISO 30401 KMS might prove to be helpful in

Figure 3. Implementing ISO 30401: 2018 – risks, challenges and benefits.
addressing the challenges for managers by streamlin­
ing the avenues in which knowledge exists and creates
value for the organization . . . .ISO 30401 supports
business leaders in developing more awareness for
the benefits of KM in general, and helps managers to
formulate strategies to identify ‘manageable business
areas’ in terms of knowledge. Furthermore, the intro­
duction of the standard may provide knowledge man­
agers with leverage in their organization”. (p. 16). The
same scholars sustain that ISO 30401 as “a worldwide
comparable management standard for knowledge
management provides a tool for signalling effective
KM to insiders as well as outsiders” (p. 17).
Therefore, adopting ISO 30401 is a signal for outsiders
that the organisation develops and manages its knowl­
edge effectively.
Collison et al. (2019), in their book “The KM
Cookbook: Stories and strategies for organisations
exploring Knowledge Management Standard ISO
30401”, outline that organisations can use KM
Standard ISO 30401 to pursue certification, or simply
to review their existing programme and strategy. The
scholars highlight that the KM standards do not sug­
gest how to implement a KM programme, but what to
implement. For this reason, they propose the “KM
Chef’s Canvas” – a strategic tool that maps the areas
of the KM standard against specific capabilities, and
asks 57 varieties of questions that help organisations
assess their own KM approach for a fresh perspective,
and help prepare them for any journey towards
accreditation. The Canvas should be used “to simulate
a KM programme audit or as a lens through which to
view your existing KM programme and to test its
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 9
robustness and effectiveness, regardless or whether
or not you pursue ISO 30401 accreditation” (p. 53).
The authors describe some success stories of KM with
the framework of KM standard.
The analysis of literature on the ISO 30401 standard
for KMS, shows that the standard produces benefits if
it is well embedded in the rich and complex setting in
which organisational knowledge is generated and
managed. This can require some changes in organisa­
tion’s culture and processes that have to be gradually
done. Figure 3 summarises the main findings of the
literature review about risks, challenges and benefits
regarding the implementation of ISO 30401 KMS
requirements. The list is by no means exhaustive, as
a further empirical investigation is required to
describe comprehensively the phenomenon.
4. Conclusions
KM exists as a discipline from several decades.
Sometimes it has been considered a further man­
agement fad, maybe because it has never had
approaches, models, tools and methods universally
agreed upon. The recent inclusion of KM-related
requirements into ISO standards, i.e., ISO
9001:2015 Quality Management Systems –
Requirements and ISO 30401:2018 Knowledge
Management Systems – Requirements, has pro­
vided a sort of new emphasis and professional
credibility to the discipline (Collison et al., 2019).
The need of defining some standards for KM has
grown hand in hand with the increasing strategic
relevance of KM for organisations and the need of
10 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.
building KMSs more and more effective. ISO 30401
KMS principles and requirements have been con­
ceived mainly: “a) as guidance for organizations
that aim to be competent in optimizing the value
of organizational knowledge; b) as a basis for audit­
ing, certifying, evaluating and recognizing such
competent organizations by internal and external
recognized auditing bodies” (ISO 30401, 2018,
p. V). An organisation can decide to adopt ISO
30401 to pursue accreditation of its KMS, or to
use the standards just as a lens through which to
analyse its own KMS and assure the robustness of
its KM programme. The adoption of the ISO stan­
dard is voluntary and the ISO 30401 standard pro­
vides scope and rules to follow in order to set up
an efficient KMS. Several organisations have started
implementing the ISO 30401:2018 KMS require­
ments (see, e.g., Collison et al., 2019). However,
some concerns about the wide use of KMS stan­
dards still exist. The reasons of such concerns can
be manifold. They can refer to limited resources
(e.g., money, time and people) that organisations,
especially SMEs, can invest in ISO standard imple­
mentation, but also to the fact that ISO manage­
ment system standards are written in a complex
language that can be quite difficult to understand
and specify numerous elements that suggest that
the system is bureaucratic. Additionally, imple­
menting multiple ISO standards, e.g., ISO 140001,
ISO 9001, ISO 30401, ISO/IEC 27032, etc., in an
integrated way can be demanding for an organisa­
tion. More widely, the key aspects an organisation
needs to manage to accomplish KM requirements
of ISO and how to do it, as well as risks, challenges
and benefits, connected to the implementation of
the standard, are topics to further investigate, espe­
cially from an empirical viewpoint.
Drawing on a review of the literature on ISO stan­
dards for KMS, the paper systematises and integrates
KM-oriented ISO requirements for organisational
management systems in some conceptual and mind
maps. From a theoretical viewpoint, these maps offer
a fresh and comprehensive conceptualisation of KM-
oriented ISO requirements that clearly highlights the
key factors, variables, and dimensions to consider in
order to build and implement a KMS. From a practical
viewpoint, the maps make it easier to understand the
ISO requirements for KM. They can help managers
reflect on the adoption of KM standards, better under­
stand the organisational needs for ISO purposes and
drive the KMS design and implementation.
The literature review suggests a set of risks, benefits
and challenges that scholars and practitioners have
associated to the “standardisation” of KM and KMS.
The identified set is not exhaustive, due to the still
scarce number of studies on the subject. However, it
sheds more light on the existence of some practical
features that can affect the adoption of ISO certifica­
tion for KM, to further explore. From a practical view­
point, the identified list of potential difficulties and/or
benefits can help managers make decisions on the
adoption of ISO 30401. Certainly, difficulties and/or
benefits have to be contextualised. Each organisation
has its distinctive characteristics, e.g., strategy, struc­
ture, culture just to name a few that affect benefits,
risks and challenges related to ISO standards applica­
tion. Additionally, difficulties and/or benefits for orga­
nisation may vary depending on the purpose of
implementing ISO standards, i.e., certifying KMS or
merely revising organisational KMS.
Undoubtedly, further rigorous empirical studies are
necessary in order to analyse the real benefits, risks
and challenges regarding the implementation of ISO
30401:2018.
The topics addressed in the paper are just a small
piece of the numerous issues to investigate about ISO
standards for KMS. To date, there are still several key
knowledge gaps on which research should focus in the
future, using both quantitative and qualitative
research methods and numerous research questions
should be deeply explored, such as: What are organi­
sational factors enabling and hampering the successful
development of ISO 30401 standards for KM? What are
the organisational characteristics (e.g., size, industry,
operating environment and ecosystem) enabling and
hampering the development of ISO 30401 standards
for KM? How can an organisation successfully structure
its KMS and KM programme according to ISO KM
requirements and principles? What are the external
factors to an organisation that affect the successful
implementation of KMS according to ISO KM require­
ments and principles? How can an organisation drive
progressive organisational changes to make its KMS
consistent with ISO standards, in the light of its strategic
objectives? How can an organisation ignite a KM stan­
dards culture among its internal and external stake­
holders? How can an organisation successfully engage
its internal and external stakeholders in the implemen­
tation of KMS driven by ISO standards principles? How
can an organisation integrate ISO standard for KM
with existing management systems and adopted inter­
national standards (e.g., ISO 140001, ISO 9001, etc.) in
order to facilitate its implementation? What are the
main challenges, risks and benefits related to the imple­
mentation of KM requirements of ISO standard 30,401,
experienced by organisations?
These are a few open research questions regarding
the understanding of how an organisation can effec­
tively set up, implement, and manage ISO 30401 stan­
dard. They open the way for further research and
empirical investigation about the rich and complex
environment in which KM and KMS work in organi­
sations, also “in a standardised form”.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
References
Balaid, A. S. S. (2012). A comprehensive review of knowl­
edge mapping techniques. Journal of Information Systems
Research and Innovation, 3(1), 71–76.
Balaid, A., Rozan, M. Z. A., Hikmi, S. N., & Memon, J.
(2016). Knowledge maps: A systematic literature review
and directions for future research. International Journal
of Information Management, 36(3), 451–475. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.005
Barnes, S. (2022). How radical KM is knowledge manage­
ment: Referencing ISO knowledge management systems
—requirements standard 30401. Business Information
Review, 39(2), 51–55.
Boonchan, G., Sinthamrongruk, T., & Khamaksorn, A.
(2022). Knowledge Management in the Royal Thai
Army: ISO30401: 2018 Knowledge Management
Systems Perspective. In 2022 Joint International
Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with
ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical,
Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications
Engineering (ECTI DAMT & NCON) (pp. 151–156).
IEEE.
Boyes, B. (2018). Implementing KM standard ISO 30401:
Risks and opportunities. Knowledge Management (KM).
https://realkm.com/2018/04/06/implementing-km-
standard-iso-30401-risks-and-opportunities/
Carayannis, E. G., Ferreira, J. J. M., & Fernandes, C. (2021).
A prospective retrospective: Conceptual mapping of the
intellectual structure and research trends of knowledge
management over the last 25 years. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 25(8), 1977–1999. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JKM-07-2020-0581
Carlucci, D., Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. (2004). The knowledge
value chain: How intellectual capital impacts on business
performance. International Journal of Technology
Management, 27(6–7), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJTM.2004.004903
Collison, C., Corney, P. J., & Eng, P. L. (2019). The KM
Cookbook: Stories and Strategies for Organisations
Exploring Knowledge Management Standard ISO 30401.
Facet Publishing.
Corney, P. J. (2018). As KM evolves, so will the ISO
standard. Business Information Review, 35(4), 165–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382118810825
Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps,
mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors
as complementary tools for knowledge construction and
sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131
Ferreira, J., Mueller, J., & Papa, A. (2020). Strategic knowl­
edge management: Theory, practice and future
challenges. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2),
121–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2018-0461
Fry, I. (2015 4 October), Knowledge Management and ISO
9001: 2015.Real KM. https://realkm.com/2015/10/14/
knowledge-management-and-iso-90012015/
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 11
Herdmann, F. (2020). Handling Knowledge Risk
Management Supported by ISO Standards. In S. Durst
& T. Henschel (Eds.), Knowledge Risk Management.
Management for Professionals (pp. 229–251). Springer.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO
30401:2018 Knowledge management systems –
Requirements. International Organization for
Standardization – ISO`.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018).
Proposals for management system standards (ISO/IEC
Directives Part 1 and Consolidated ISO Supplement, Annex
SL). International Organization for Standardization – ISO.
International Organization for Standardization – ISO.
(2015). ISO 9001: 2015Quality management systems –
Requirements. International Organization for
Standardization – ISO.
Ioannis, R., & Belias, D. (2020). Combining strategic man­
agement with knowledge management: Trends and inter­
national perspectives. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 10(3), 39–45. https://doi.
org/10.32479/irmm.9621
Kudryavtsev, D., & Sadykova, D. (2019). Towards architect­
ing a knowledge management system: Requirements for
an ISO compliant framework. In IFIP Working
Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (pp.
36–50). Springer.
Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The relation
among organizational culture, knowledge management,
and innovation capability: Its implication for open
innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.
3390/joitmc7010066
Larkin, J. H. (1989). Display based problem solving. In
D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information
processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp.
319–341). MIT Press.
Lin, C., & Tseng, S. (2005). The implementation gaps for the
knowledge management system. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 105(2), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.
1108/02635570510583334
Maximo, E. Z., Pereira, R., Malvestiti, R., & de Souza, J. A.
(2020). ISO 30401: The standardization of knowledge.
International Journal of Development Research, 10(6),
37155–37159.
Milton, N., & Lambe, P. (2016). The Knowledge Manager’s
Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Embedding Effective
Knowledge Management in Your Organization. Kogan
Page Ltd.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating
company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of
innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2007). The knowledge-creating
company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 162.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2019). The wise company: How
companies create continuous innovation. Oxford
University Press.
Pawlowsky, P., Pflugfelder, N. S., & Wagner, M. H. (2021).
The ISO 30401 knowledge management systems stan­
dard–a new framework for value creation and research?
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 506–527. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JIC-07-2020-0256
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do
graphical representations work? International Journal of
 12 D. CARLUCCI ET AL.
Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213. https://doi.
org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048
Schiuma, G., & Carlucci, D. (2015). The next generation of
knowledge management: Mapping-based assessment
models. In E. Bolisani & M. Handzic (Eds.), Advances in
Knowledge Management (pp. 197–214). Springer.
Schiuma, G., Carlucci, D., & Sole, F. (2012). Applying
a systems thinking framework to assess knowledge assets
dynamics for business performance improvement. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8044–8050. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.139
Soto-Acosta, P., & Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G. (2016). New ICTs
for Knowledge Management in Organizations. Journal of
View publication stats
Knowledge Management, 20(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JKM-02-2016-0057
Takeuchi, H., & Shibata, T. (2006). Japan, Moving
Toward a More Advanced Knowledge Economy:
Volume 2. Advanced Knowledge-Creating Companies.
World Bank.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical dis­
plays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14
(3), 261–312. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1016064429161
Wagner, M. (2020). ISO 30401: Wissen systematisch nutzen.
Wissensmanagement, 22(4), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s43443-020-0163-x