Abstract
Instead of focusing on one-size-fits-all policies for knowledge management (KM), this research attempts to establish a taxonomy of workers based on their KM readiness expressed through their attitudes and participation in KM activities. A questionnaire survey conducted with Japanese engineers reveals four distinct groups—advocates, skeptics, busy, and hopeful—derived from their perceived importance of and time spent on KM actions, with significantly differentiated perceived enablers and barriers of KM. The data, containing answers to both open-ended and ordinal scale questions, was analyzed with both text-mining and statistical analyses. Broadly, KM advocates and busy people recognize the importance of intention and autonomy while skeptics give very little credit to any established KM enabler. Advocates, busy people and skeptics recognize information and people as important barriers to knowledge acquisition, storage and system as impediments to knowledge storage, understanding as an obstacle to knowledge diffusion, and application as a hurdle for knowledge application. Advocates, representing the most actively-involved faction in KM, consistently acknowledge intention and autonomy as enablers, while they cite people as barriers of KM. The results of this study suggest that to improve KM, organizations should first segment their workers based on their attitudes and participation in KM activities, and then implement different strategies aimed at different subgroups of employees based on their level of preparation or readiness for KM.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Zack MH (1999) Developing a knowledge strategy. Calif Manag Rev 41(3):125–145
Donate MJ, Canales JI (2012) A new approach to the concept of knowledge strategy. J Knowl Manag 16(1):22–44
Alvesson M (2004) Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford University Press, Oxford
O’Donohue W, Sheehan C, Hecker R, Holland P (2007) The psychological contract of knowledge workers. J Knowl Manag 11(2):73–82
Makani J, Marche S (2010) Towards a typology of knowledge-intensive organizations: determinant factors. Knowl Manag Res Pract 8(3):265–277
Magnier-Watanabe R, Senoo D (2009) Congruent knowledge management behaviors as discriminate sources of competitive advantage. J Workplace Learn 21(2):109–124
Lin H (2011) The effects of employee motivation, social interaction, and knowledge management strategy on KM implementation level. Knowl Manag Res Pract 9(3):263–275
Magnier-Watanabe R, Senoo D (2011) The role of a strong corporate mission for knowledge management. J Inf Knowl Manag 10(2):109–122
Benton C, Magnier-Watanabe R (2013) The impact of commitment, empowerment, and embeddedness on knowledge management in domestic and foreign-affiliated firms in Japan. Knowl Manag Res Pract (forthcoming)
Geisler E (2007) A typology of knowledge management: strategic groups and role behavior in organizations. J Knowl Manag 11(1):84–96
Lee H, Choi B (2003) Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. J Manag Inf Syst 20(1):179–228
Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Drucker PF (1993) Post-capitalist society. Harper Business, New York
Henriksen LB (2001) Knowledge management and engineering practices: the case of knowledge management, problem solving and engineering practices. Technovation 21(9):595–603
Wong H (2004) Knowledge value chain: implementation of new product development system in a winery. Electron J Knowl Manag 2(1):77–90
Chen M, Chen A (2006) Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004. J Inf Sci 32(1):17–38
Heisig P (2009) Harmonisation of knowledge management—comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. J Knowl Manag 13(4):4–31
Magnier-Watanabe R, Senoo D (2008) Organizational characteristics as prescriptive factors of knowledge management initiatives. J Knowl Manag 12(1):21–36
Massa S, Testa S (2009) A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive advantage: evidence from the food sector. Eur Manag J 27(2):129–141
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
March J (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87
Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49(4):693–706
Polanyi M (1966) Tacit dimension. Peter Smith, Gloucester
Davenport T, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Bullinger H, Worner K, Prieto J (1997) Knowledge management today: data, facts, trend. Institut fur Fraunhofer fur Arbeit Management und Organisation (IAO), Stuttgart (in German)
Riege A (2005) Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J Knowl Manag 9(3):18–35
Singh MD, Kant R (2008) Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural modeling approach. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 3(2):141–150
Kline P (1999) The handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, London
Hair JF, Andersen RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, London
Damodaran L, Olphert W (2000) Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management systems. Behav Inf Technol 19(6):405–413
Phillips BT (2003) A four-level learning organization benchmark implementation model. Learn Organ 10(2):98–105
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this paper
Cite this paper
Watanabe, R.M., Benton, C. (2014). One-Size-Fits-All? Towards a Taxonomy of Knowledge Workers. In: Uden, L., Wang, L., Corchado Rodríguez, J., Yang, HC., Ting, IH. (eds) The 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7287-8_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7287-8_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7286-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7287-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)