Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future Research in Knowledge Management: Results from the Global Knowledge Research Network Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Knowledge Management

Part of the book series: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning ((IAKM,volume 1))

Abstract

Over the last two decades, knowledge has attracted increased interest in academia and practice. Numerous journals have dedicated special issues to knowledge in organisations and 25 peer-reviewed journals have emerged under the label Knowledge Management (KM). Every sector from manufacturing and services to public administration has engaged in KM initiatives. The Global Knowledge Research Network (GKRN) conducted a global study to identify future research needs in KM. 222 KM experts (38 countries, 42 nationalities, 16 industries, government, international organisations, NGOs, 16 academic disciplines) have contributed. This chapter reports the overall results. Future research in KM needs to demonstrate the value contribution of KM, should focus more on human and social factors and explore KM as an organisational capability. The core concepts of knowledge should be re-visited to improve the understanding. More critical research approaches should be employed and KM research should experiment with design science, ecological and biological models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The first analysis for KM Theory was undertaken by Remy Magnier-Watanabe (University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan) and Narendra M Agrawal (Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India) and for KM Practice by Aldu Cornelissen (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa) and Ernesto Amaru Galvis Lista (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia).

  2. 2.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Joanna Paliszkiewicz, Magdalena Madra (Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland) and Nasser Fathi Easa (Alexandria University, Egypt).

  3. 3.

    The statistical analysis was undertaken by Peter Heisig (Leeds University Business School, UK).

  4. 4.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj (Lagos State University, Nigeria) and Gregorio Perez Arrau (Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile).

  5. 5.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Nóra Obermayer-Kovács (University of Pannonia, Hungary) and Anthony Wensley, Max Evans (University of Toronto, Canada).

  6. 6.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Nicholas Caldwell (Suffolk Business School, UK) and Peter Bo Sarka (Technical University of Denmark, Denmark).

  7. 7.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Peter Heisig (Leeds University Business School, UK) and Aino Kianto (Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland).

  8. 8.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Karina Jensen (NEOMA Business School, Reims Campus, France) and Nekane Aramburu, Josune Sáenz (Deusto Business School, Universidad de Deusto, Spain).

  9. 9.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Rony Dayan (Israel Institute of Technology, Israel) and Florinda Matos, Isabel Miguel (Intellectual Capital Accreditation Association, Portugal).

  10. 10.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Lucia Rodriguez Aceves (Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico) and Cosmas Kemboi (KCA University, Nairobi, Kenya).

  11. 11.

    The first analysis was undertaken by Fábio Ferreira Batista (Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada, Brasilia, Brazil) and Mariza Tsakalerou (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong).

References

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 25, 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 811–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APO. (2009). Knowledge management workshop: Participants’ guide. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Mcevily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 4, 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, N. G., & Armistead, C. G. (2001). Selected debate from the arena of knowledge management: New endorsements for established organizational practices. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F., Reed, M., & Whitaker, A. (1993). Editorial introduction: Knowledge workers and contemporary organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 851–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booker, L. D., Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2008). The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research. Knowledge and Process Management, 15, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN. (2004). European guide to good practice in knowledge management – CWA 14924–1. Part 1: Knowledge management framework. Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cha, H. S., Pingry, D. E., & Thatcher, M. E. (2008). Managing the knowledge supply chain: An organizational learning model of information technology offshore outsourcing. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 32, 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. L. (2003). Information technology and economic performance: A critical review of the empirical evidence. ACM Computing Surveys, 35, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29, 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, M. (2007). The emerging academic discipline of knowledge management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Y. N. (2004). Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 61, 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazlett, S. A., Mcadam, R., & Gallagher, S. (2005). Theory building in knowledge management in search of paradigms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management – Comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 4–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, P., & Finke, I. (2003). Wissensmanagement-Kompetenz-Check. In L. Rosenstiel & J. Erpenbeck (Eds.), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung. Erkennen, verstehen und bewerten von Kompetenzen in der betrieblichen, pädagogischen und psychologischen Praxis. Stuttgart: Poeschel Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, P., & Orth, R. (2007). Knowledge management frameworks – An international comparative study. eureki, Berlin and Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, P., & Samuel, A. (2013). Global knowledge research network – Vision & aims. In P. Heisig, & A. Samuel (Eds.), 1st international workshop of the GKR-network Road Mapping Future Research in Knowlege Management. Leeds: Leeds University Business School, 17–19 Jul 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasimuddin, S. M. (2006). Disciplinary roots of knowledge management: A theoretical review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S., & Mitterhofer, H. (Eds.). (2010). Beyond knowledge management – Sociomaterial and sociocultural perspectives within management research. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassel (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. A practical guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehaney, B., Clarke, S., Coakes, E., & Jack, G. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond knowledge management. London: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31, 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, R. (2004). Knowledge management systems. Information and communication technologies for knowledge management. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (2008). Knowledge management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 371–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcadam, R., Mason, B., & Mccrory, J. (2007). Exploring the dichotomies within the tacit knowledge literature: Towards a process of tacit knowing in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E., 3rd (Eds.). (2011). Useful research. Advancing theory and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S. A., Finegold, D., & Klein, J. A. (2002). Designing the knowledge enterprise: Beyond programs and tools. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27, 1179–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowsky, P., & Schmid, S. (2012). Interrelations between strategic orientation, knowledge management, innovation and performance. Empirical findings from a national survey in Germany. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 5, 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowsky, P., Goezalan, A., & Schmid, S. (2011). Wettbewerbsfaktor Wissen: Managementpraxis von Wissen und Intellectual Capital in Deutschland. Eine repraesentative Unternehmensbefragung zum Status quo. Chemnitz: Technische Universitaet Chemnitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez Arrau, G., Suraj, O. A., Heisig, P., Easa, N. F., Kemboi, C., & Kianto, A. (2014). Knowledge management and business outcome/performance: Results from a review and global expert study with future research directions. BAM 2014. Belfast: British Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1985). Implizites Wissen the tacit dimension. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2010). Whatever happened to human resource management performance? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinmann, G., & Eppler, M. J. (2008). Wissenswege. Methoden für das persönliche Wissensmanagement. [Methods for personal knowledge management]. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2011). Management tools & trends 2011. BAIN & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, K. E., Goury, M. L., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2011). Knowledge management in supply chain: An empirical study from France. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20, 283–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarka, P. B., Heisig, P., & Caldwell, N. H. M. (2014). Future research in technology enablers for KM: A worldwide expert study. BAM 2014. Belfast: British Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, W., & Heisig, P. (2003). Delphi study on the future of knowledge management – Overview of the results. In K. Mertins, P. Heisig, & J. Vorbeck (Eds.), Knowledge management. Concepts and best practices (2nd ed.). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, W., Konig, C., Meyer, B., & Heisig, P. (2004). The future of knowledge management: An international delphi study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 26, 213–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013a). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013b). The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (2003a). The social and political control of knowledge in modern societies. International Social Science Journal, 55, 643–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (2003b). Wissenspolitik. Die Überwachung des Wissens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J. E., & Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the future: Adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Organisation Management Journal, 6, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkitachalam, K., & Busch, P. (2012). Tacit knowledge: Review and possible research directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 356–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venzin, M., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Future research into knowledge management. In G. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowling in firms. Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. P., van Fleet, C., & Downs, L. J. (2011). The research core of the knowledge management literature. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank University of Leeds (FIRC) and the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies (SAMS) for providing initial funding for this research.

The author would like to thank the members of the Global Knowledge Research Network from Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uruguay, USA and United Kingdom.

Without the help before and the contribution at the first GKR-Network Workshop in July 2013 this work would not have been possible. Special thanks to:

Dimension

Research partners

B – KM Theory

Remy Magnier-Watanabe (University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan) and Narendra M Agrawal (Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India)

B – KM Practice

Aldu Cornelissen (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa) and Ernesto Amaru Galvis Lista (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia)

C – Core Concepts

Joanna Paliszkiewicz, Magdalena Madra (Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland) and Nasser Fathi Easa (Alexandria University, Egypt)

D1 – Business Outcome

Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj (Lagos State University, Nigeria) and Gregorio Perez Arrau (Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile)

D2 – Human and Social Factors

Nóra Obermayer-Kovács (University of Pannonia, Hungary) and Anthony Wensley, Max Evans (University of Toronto, Canada)

D3 – Technological Enablers

Nicholas Caldwell (Suffolk Business School, UK) and Peter Bo Sarka (Technical University of Denmark, Denmark)

D4 – KM Processes

Peter Heisig (Leeds University Business School, UK) and Aino Kianto (Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland)

D5 – Capabilities

Karina Jensen (NEOMA Business School, Reims Campus, France) and Nekane Aramburu, Josune Sáenz (Deusto Business School, Universidad de Deusto, Spain)

D6 – Strategy

Rony Dayan (Israel Institute of Technology, Israel) and Florinda Matos, Isabel Miguel (Intellectual Capital Accreditation Association, Portugal)

D7 – Environment

Lucia Rodriguez Aceves (Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico) and Cosmas Kemboi (KCA University, Nairobi, Kenya)

D8 – Knowledge Economy

Fábio Ferreira Batista (Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada, Brasilia, Brazil) and Mariza Tsakalerou (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong)

Finally, I would extend my special thanks to Nicholas Caldwell for his help with the proof-reading at a very short notice and to Anita Samuel, Leeds University Business School, Leeds for her support in organising the first network workshop in Leeds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socio-Technical Centre, Management Division, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK

    Peter Heisig

Authors
  1. Peter Heisig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Heisig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Vincenza, Italy

    Ettore Bolisani

  2. International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Suleyman Sah University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Meliha Handzic

Annex: Coding Schema for Experts

Annex: Coding Schema for Experts

DE-01-HE-PRO-15-ECO

A coding schema for each interview partner was designed consisting of the following:

  • DE = Germany – Country working in

  • 01 = Number of interview per country

  • HE = Higher Education – Industry

  • PRO = Professor – Role of the interviewee

  • 15 = years of KM experiences (longest if two were given)

  • ECO = Economics – Academic: Discipline doing research/ Industry: Discipline educated in

Country (ISO 3166)

Industry

Role

Education/discipline

AT – Austria

AE – Aerospace Industry

CKO – Chief Knowledge Officer

ARC – Architecture

BA – Bosnia & Herz

AU – Automotive Industry

KPM – Knowledge Program Manager

BM – Business & Management Research, Accounting

BR – Brazil

BIF – Banking, Insurance and Financial Services

HKM – Head of Knowledge Management

CIT – Computer Sciences & Information Technology

CA – Canada

CO – Construction

IKM – Internal KM Consultant

ECO – Economics

CH – Switzerland

CPS – Consulting and Professional Services

EKM – External KM Consultant

ENG – Engineering

CL – Chile

CG – Consumer Goods

DIR – Director, Manager

GEO – Geology

CO – Colombia

CP – Chemical and Pharmaceutical

OB – Other Business role

IS – Information Science, Library Science

DK – Denmark

ITS – IT and Software

PRO – Professor

KM – Knowledge Management

EG – Egypt

ELE – Electric Industry

SL – Senior Lecturer/Lecturer

PHI – Philosophy

ES – Spain

ERM – Energy and Raw materials

SR – Senior Researcher

NAT – Natural Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Biology

ET – Ethiopia

ECM – Engineering, Capital Equipment and Metal

OA = Other role academia

PSY – Psychology, Behavioural Science

FI – Finland

FA – Food and Agriculture

 

SOC – Sociology

FR – France

GOV – Government Administration

POL – Political Sciences

DE – Germany

HE – Higher Education, University

LAW – Law

GB – Great Britain

MEF – Media & Film

HLA – Humanities, Languages, Art

HK – Hong Kong

PWC – Paper, Wood, Glass, Ceramics

OD – Other Discipline

HR – Croatia

TEL – Telecommunications

 

HU – Hungary

TCF – Textile, Clothing, Shoes, Fashion

IE – Ireland

IN – India

IL – Israel

TRA – Trading

JP – Japan

TRT – Transport and Tourism

KE – Kenya

LK – Sri Lanka

SER – Service s

MA – Morocco

OTI – Other Industry

MX – Mexico

NA – No answer

NG – Nigeria

 

PL – Poland

PT – Portugal

RI – Indonesia

SE – Sweden

TH – Thailand

TT – Trinidad & Tobago

US – United States

UY – Uruguay

ZA – South Africa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heisig, P. (2015). Future Research in Knowledge Management: Results from the Global Knowledge Research Network Study. In: Bolisani, E., Handzic, M. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09501-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation