Knowledge Management Systems – The End of the Road?: Position Paper

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 185)


The increasing importance given towards knowledge management (KM) implementation for organisational success is hardly questionable resulting in significant attention directed towards KM systems. The extended IT industry has been quick to promote the notion that KM and in turn KM systems not only lowers cost structures and increases strategic flexibility but also facilitates knowledge creation and utilization. Conversely, many KM systems have proven unsustainable to date, exhibiting low quantity and quality of knowledge, with systems falling into disuse. Knowledge is generally assumed to be largely cognitive and therefore, highly personal and dynamic. Knowledge workers too do not like to be ‘managed’ and have the tendency to resist systematic attempts to manage and dictate contributions. KM systems on the other hand are seen to require systematization and control of knowledge. Such a mismatch has seen most KM systems today being reduced to nothing more than a management fad and an illustrious information management system failing to achieve its intended aims. This position paper espouses important tenets when operationalising KM. The paper highlights the need to contextualise KM initiatives by studying human practices as a development process with the introduction of Activity Theory. The paper also examines the need to co-create knowledge workers by understanding human consciousness and motivation as value with key drivers. The authors have also espoused the need to foster a conducive KM environment to spur KM implementation.


Knowledge management (KM) Knowledge management system (KMS) Activity theory (AT) Co-creation of value 


  1. 1.
    Philip, M.: Survey – Knowledge Management Financial Times, 28 April 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babcock, P: Shedding Light on Knowledge Management, Society for Human Resource Management. HR Mag. 9(5). (2004). Accessed 15 March 2014 (Available via SHRM)
  3. 3.
    Macintosh, A.: Position Paper on Knowledge Asset Management, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh. (n.d.). Accessed 16 March 2014 (Available via AIAI Homepage)
  4. 4.
    Frost, A.: A Synthesis of Knowledge Management Failure Factors, Knowledge Management Tools. (2014). Accessed 17 March 2014 (Available via KMT)
  5. 5.
    Quast, L.: Why Knowledge Management is Important to the Success of your Company, Forbes. (2012). Accessed 17 March 2014 (Available via Forbes)
  6. 6.
    Google Trends: Knowledge management – interest over time. (2014). Accessed 10 March 2014 (Available via Google Trends)
  7. 7.
    Brewster, C., Ciravegna, F., Yorick, W.: Knowledge acquisition for knowledge management: position paper. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-2001Workshop on Ontology Learning, Seattle. (2001). Accessed 10 March 2014 (Available via Sheffield University)
  8. 8.
    Edwards, J.-S., Shaw, D., Collier, P.-M.: Knowledge management systems – finding a way with technology. J. Knowl. Manage. 9(1), 113–125, ISSN 1367–3270, (2005). doi: 10.1108/13673270510583009 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited)
  9. 9.
    Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Wilks, Y.: Data driven ontology evaluation. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 24–30 May 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. (2004). Accessed 11 March 2014 (Available via The Open University)
  10. 10.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind and Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernández, R.F., Gόmez-Sanz, J.J., Pavόn, J.: Understanding the human context in requirements elicitation, Requirements Eng. (2010) 15, 267–283, (2009). doi: 10.1007/s00766-009-0087-714
  12. 12.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lichtenstein, S., Swatman, P.M.C.: Sustainable knowledge management systems: integration, personalisation and contextualisation. Deakin University School of Information Systems, Geelong (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan, S.: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, Lecture Slides, CS 260, Spring 2009. University of California, Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy Leadersh. 32(3), 4–9, ISSN: 1087-8572 (2004) (Emerald Insight)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roser, T., et al.: Co-creation – new pathways to value (An Overview), Promise Corporation, LSE Enterprise Report (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sukumaran, S., Hsu-Kim, O.:Organisation support framework for knowledge elicitation. In: Proceedings of Knowledge Management International Conference and Exhibition 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDermott, R.: Why information technology delivered but cannot deliver knowledge management. Calif. Manage. Rev. 41(4), 103–117 (1999) (ABI/INFORM Global, Summer 1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.: Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Q. 23(1), 3–16 (1999). doi: 10.2307/249403. (JSTOR 249403)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and ITTaylor’s UniversitySubang JayaMalaysia
  2. 2.Sunway UniversityPetaling JayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations