Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundation

  • Chapter
Knowledge Management Systems

  • 3388 Accesses

Abstract

Recently, knowledge management has received a lot of attention in scholarly as well as in practitioner-oriented literature and in professional services companies as well as in business organizations of all industrial sectors. Due to the large demand for concepts and theories to support a systematic intervention into the way an organization handles knowledge, the field has attracted researchers from different disciplines and has absorbed a wide array of research questions and approaches to solve these questions. This chapter is devoted to give an overview of the roots of knowledge management, the historical development of the literature and practice in some of its predecessors, especially organizational learning and organizational memory approaches.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For an overview of some of the roots of knowledge management or the two most prominent underlying concepts organizational learning and organizational memory e.g., Huber 1991, Frese 1992, Lehner et al. 1995, 165ff, Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995, 1997, Schüppel 1996, 13ff and 186f, Spender 1996, Wiegand 1996, 77ff, Kieser 1999, 133ff, 253ff, Tuomi 1999, 21ff, Lehner 2000, Roehl 2000, 88ff.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See for example Trebesch 1980, 1982 for a comprehensive list of OD definitions and approaches, French/Bell 1978, 14ff, Wohlgemuth 1981, 51ff, Thom 1992, Wiegand 1996, 146, Schubert 1998, 19ff.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For early approaches on organizational learning see e.g., Cyert/March 1963, March/Olsen 1976, 54ff, Argyris/Schön 1978, Duncan/Weiss 1979, Jelinek 1979; see also e.g., Stata 1989, Brown/Duguid 1991, Geißler 1991, Reber 1992, Kim 1993, Probst/Büchel 1994, Geißler 1995, Nevis et al. 1995, Geller 1996, Wahren 1996, Wiegand 1996, Klimecki/Thomae 1997, Pawlowsky 1998a, Schreyögg/Eberl 1998, Crossan et al. 1999, Kieser et al. 1999, Nothhelfer 1999, Wilkesmann 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See e.g., Senge 1990, 1990a, Garvin 1993, 80ff, Schreyögg/Noss 1995, 176ff, Lang/Amelingmeyer 1996, Güldenberg 1997, 105ff, Wieselhuber et al. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See e.g., Hedberg 1981, Nelson/Winter 1982, 99ff, Huber 1991, 90, Walsh/Ungson 1991, 61ff, Sandoe/Olfman 1992, Kim 1993, 43, Stein 1995, Stein/Zwass 1995, Walsh 1995, Buckingham Shum 1998, Eulgem 1998, 144ff, Herterich 1998, Eulgem 1999, Cross/Baird 2000, Lehner 2000, 160ff.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See e.g., Kühn/Abecker 1997, Dieng et al. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See e.g., Duncan/Weiss 1979, 86f, Pautzke 1989, Müller-Stewens/Pautzke 1991, 192, Probst/Büchel 1994, 17ff, Amelingmeyer 2000, 39ff.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Spear/Bowen 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For the following explanation of organizational memory see also Lehner 2000, 75ff, Maier/Lehner 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See e.g., Spitzer 1996, 12ff and 209ff who compares the functioning of computers and of brains.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See e.g., Matsuda 1992, Müller-Merbach 1996, 1998, 1999, Oberschulte 1996, Schuhmann/Schwaninger 1999, Tuomi 1999, 22ff, also mentioned in March/Olsen 1976, 54 and Huber 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See e.g., Vedder et al. 1999, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See e.g., Jacobsen 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See e.g., Weick 1969, 54ff, Greiner 1972, Hannan/Freeman 1977, 1984, McKelvey/Aldrich 1983, Astley 1985, Segler 1985, 168ff, Maturana/Varela 1987, Probst 1987, Ulrich/Probst 1988, Lutz 1991, 105ff, Kieser 1992, 1999, 253ff, Wiegand 1996, 93ff, Weibler/Deeg 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See e.g., Freimuth et al. 1997, Sattelberger 1999, 18ff and 149ff, Bullinger et al. 2000, 79f, Vorbeck/Finke 2001a; for an overview of HRM software to support KM see Koubek et al. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. In German: Informationsverarbeitungsansatz; introduced into business administration theory in German speaking countries by Kirsch (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  17. See e.g., Hertz 1988, Kleinhans 1989, 49ff for an overview of the use of AI technologies and expert systems for businesses.

    Google Scholar 

  18. For a detailed analysis of the relationship between knowledge-based systems and KM see Hendriks/Vriens 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Barney 1991, 106ff; see also chapter 5-“Strategy” on page 93.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See e.g., Grant 1996b, Spender 1996a, Zack 1999b, see also section 5.1.1-“From market-based to knowledge-based view” on page 94.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Nicholson/Wall 1982a, 6 and the literature cited there.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Nicholson/Wall 1982a, 6ff; see also Gebert/Rosenstiel 1996 for an overview of organizational psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  23. For the roots of the sociology of knowledge see Mannheim 1924, Scheler 1924; see also Berger/Luckmann 1967 for a theory of social construction of reality and for a good overview, development and critics Curtis/Petras 1970, Ant 1991; finally, see e.g., Brosziewski 1999, Degele 2000 for recent discussions of the concepts under the perspective of knowledge management or knowledge society.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Some examples for books or papers focusing on knowledge management, knowledge flow management, managing know-how or the organization of knowledge are Sveiby/Lloyd 1987, Hertz 1988, Wiig 1988, Kleinhans 1989, Stata 1989, Nonaka 1991, Kogut/Zander 1992, Quinn 1992, Albrecht 1993, Hedlund/Nonaka 1993, Strasser 1993, Wiig 1993, Blackler 1994, Hedlund 1994, Nonaka 1994, Schreinemakers et al. 1994, Zucker/Schmitz 1994, Blackler 1995, Davenport 1995a, Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995, Bierly/Chakrabarti 1996, Grant 1996b, Schmitz/Zucker 1996, Schneider 1996, Schreyögg/Conrad 1996, Schüppel 1996, Allee 1997, Demarest 1997, Güldenberg 1997, Ruggles 1997, Skyrme/Amidon 1997, Wiig 1997, Allweyer 1998, Baecker 1998, Brown/Duguid 1998, Choo 1998, Davenport et al. 1998, Davenport/Prusak 1998, Dieng et al. 1998, Pawlowsky 1998, Probst et al. 1998, Willke 1998, Bach et al. 1999, Bullinger et al. 1999, Duhnkrack/Bullinger 1999, Hansen et al. 1999, Weggemann 1999, Zack 1999a, Zack 1999c, Amelingmeyer 2000, Astleitner/Schinagl 2000, Bach/Österle 2000, Despres/Chauvel 2000, Götz 2000, Krallmann 2000, Lehner 2000, Mandl/Fischer 2000, Mandl/Reinmann-Rothmeier 2000, Roehl 2000, Alavi/Leidner 2001, Eberl 2001, Mertins et al. 2001, Schreyögg 2001, Haun 2002, Hanged 2002, Ackerman et al. 2003, Holsapple 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Examples are the Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 1996, Spender/Grant 1996, Gablers Magazin, August 1997, Probst/Deussen 1997, the California Management Review, Spring 1998, Cole 1998, the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Fall 1999, Galliers 1999, and Fall 2000, Leidner 2000, the journal IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, O’Leary/Studer 2001, and the Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 2001, Davenport/Grover 2001, or in the German-speaking countries, the journal Informationsmanagement, January 1998, e.g., Allweyer 1998, the journal Personalwirtschaft, July 1999, Jäger/Straub 1999, the journal HMD, August 1999, Heilmann 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Amidon (1998, 45 and 52) who coined the term “Ken awakening” in this context. The english word ken means to know, to recognize, to descry, to have an understanding as a verb and perception, understanding, range of vision, view, sight as a noun. According to Amidon ken ideally characterizes the joint way of thinking of many executives during the last decade that has the power to fundamentally transform businesses (Amidon 1999, 15ff).

    Google Scholar 

  27. See e.g., Binney 2001, 34ff who identifies six categories of KM applications in what he calls the KM spectrum: transactional KM (case based reasoning, help desk and customer service applications, service agent support applications), analytical KM (e.g., data warehousing and mining, business intelligence, customer relationship management), asset management KM (e.g., intellectual property, document and content management, knowledge repositories), process-based KM (e.g., based on TQM and business process reengineering programs, best practices, process improvement and automation, lessons learned), developmental KM (e.g., skills development, staff competencies, teaching and training) as well as innovation and creation (communities, collaboration, discussion forums, networking, virtual teams)

    Google Scholar 

  28. See the empirical studies cited in chapter 10-“Related Empirical Studies” on page 439; see also e.g., Skyrme/Amidon 1997, Davenport et al. 1998, Skyrme 1999, Skyrme 1999a, Wiig 1999, Sveiby 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  29. For a survey on the different definitions used see Lehner/Maier 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Examples are Augustin 1990, 15f, Eulgem 1998, 24, Greschner/Zahn 1992, 14, Willke 1998, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Source: Watson 1999, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A large number of books and papers on information management or information resource management have been published with a peak in the 80s and beginning of the 90s of the last century. More recently, there is less talk about information (resource) management. However, the basic ideas are applied, updated and extended in fields such as management of information systems, strategic planning for information systems, strategic information systems or information systems leadership. For recent collections of material on information management and related areas see e.g., Galliers/Leidner 2003, Heinrich 2002, Krcmar 2003, Pearson 2001, Ward/Peppard 2002, Watson/Brohman 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Source: Krcmar 2003, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  34. For example Osterloh/Frost 1996, Kock et al. 1997, Liebmann 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  35. For an approach that is most closely related to information management see the model for the management of knowledge presented in Rehäuser/Krcmar 1996, 20 who reuse the life cycle model presented in its latest version in Krcmar 2003, 77 which was originally developed for the management of information, see also Figure B-5 on page 43.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See also Kelloway/Barling 2000, Hayes 2001, 81f, Schultze 2003, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Drucker 1993, 5ff and 75ff who elaborates on the characteristics and productivity of knowledge workers and service workers; see also Schultze 2003, 45.

    Google Scholar 

  38. One example is Machlup 1962, Wolff 2005; see also Schultze 2003 and the literature cited there.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See also Badaracco 1991, Doz/Hamel 1998, Aulinger 1999, Moser 2002, Maier/Trögl 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Examples are Schneider 1996a, 17ff, Schüppel 1996, 187ff, Güldenberg 1997, 231ff, Roehl 2000, 88ff, Amelingmeyer 2000, 15ff, Swan 2001, 1f, Swan/Scarbrough 2001, 10, Walger/Schencking 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  41. The distinction between human-oriented and technology-oriented approaches has a long tradition in organization science (e.g., Trebesch 1980, 10 uses the framework to distinguish approaches for organization development).

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Wiig 1988, 104ff, Schüppel 1996, Güldenberg 1997, 247ff and 370ff, O’Dell/Grayson 1997, 11, Choo 1998, 18ff and 105ff, Mentzas/Apostolou 1998, 19.3, Probst et al. 1998, Rey et al. 1998, 31f, Amelingmeyer 2000, 28, Nissen et al. 2000, Pawlowsky 2000, 115ff, Roehl 2000, 154ff, Alavi/Leidner 2001, 115ff, Bhatt 2001, 71ff, Mertins et al. 2001a, 3f.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Examples are Abecker et al. 1998, Bach 1999, Bach/Österle 1999, Nedeß/Jacob 2000, 94, Wildemann 2000, 65ff.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See also Probst et al. 1998, Roehl 2000, Amelingmeyer 2000, 118ff and chapter 6-“Organization” on page 153.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Quinn et al. 1996, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See e.g., Rich 1981a, 38, Prahalad/Hamel 1990, Weick 1995, 17ff, Grant 1996a, Lehner 2000, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See also Grant 1996a, 110 who argues that the “right” definition for knowledge has to be selected for each specific purpose and research goal.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Many authors have made the philosophical roots of their definitions of knowledge visible. Examples are Gardner 1985, Musgrave 1993, Rich 1981a, 12ff, Spender 1996a, 47ff and the sources cited there, also Ayer 1982, Coreth et al. 1993, Fleischer 1996, Lutz 1999, Russel 1961, Scruton 1984 for an extensive overview of the general contributions of the Western philosophers.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See e.g., Berger/Luckmann (1967) for the Anglo-American perspective, see the Erlangen school, Lorenzen, Kamlah and their disciples for the German perspective, also Hayek 1996, 17, Scherer/Dowling 1995, 218f.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Popper 1972, 1994 for his ideas on objective knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See Ayer 1982, 69ff and Spender 1996a, 49 who analyzes perspectives on knowledge of pragmatism and other philosophies as the basis for a theory of the firm.

    Google Scholar 

  52. The danger of simply borrowing the philosophical definition of knowledge for psychology was analyzed e.g., by Musgrave (Musgrave 1993, 62f).

    Google Scholar 

  53. See section 4.2.2-“Types and classes of knowledge” on page 66, also Polanyi 1966, Wiegand 1996, 164.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E.g., Gardner 1985 who even uses the subtitle “A History of the Cognitive Revolution” in his book “The Mind’s New Science”, also Payne 1982, Squire 1987, Mandl/Spada 1988, Singley/Anderson 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  55. For literature on the topic see section 4.1.1.4-“Psychology and sociology” on page 32; see also e.g., Curtis/Petras 1970 for a good overview on early and also later developments.

    Google Scholar 

  56. As mentioned above, there are a number of schools of thought that conceptualize objective truth or objective knowledge differently. Scientific knowledge can be thought of as being the most dependable, most definite, the best knowledge that we have (Bentley 1935, 131) at a certain point in time.

    Google Scholar 

  57. These objectives can be e.g., to increase the shareholder value and/or stakeholder value of the organization, to survive and be profitable, to increase customer and/or employee satisfaction. Certainly, there are ethical responsibilities that managers have to consider. However, according to Spender most U.S. executives these days declare themselves as pragmatists (Spender 1996a, 49). Thus, knowledge in organizations is oriented towards a purpose and has to be (efficiently) applicable in the local reality of the organization handling it.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See also e.g., Lehner et al. 1995, 170ff, Roehl 2000, 11ff.

    Google Scholar 

  59. For example Matsuda 1992, 1993 calls it intelligence, also Müller-Merbach 1994–1999.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See also e.g., Hayek 1945, 521ff, Hedlund/Nonaka 1993, 118ff, Zucker/Schmitz 1994, 63, Schneider 1996, 8f, 521f, Schüppel 1996, 54ff and 76ff, Thurow 1997, 102, Zack 1999a, 46, Amelingmeyer 2000, 43ff, Frese/Theuvsen 2000, 25ff, Lehner 2000, 139ff, Romhardt 2000, 10ff, Bhatt 2001, 70, Schreyögg 2001a, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Lehner et al. 1995, especially 170ff for an extensive survey of these definitions.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lave/ Wenger 1991, 54ff, 91ff, see also section 6.1.3.3-“Communities” on page 180.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Mandl et al. 1994 for a discussion of the applicability of the community approach to university learning.

    Google Scholar 

  64. For a more detailed analysis see chapter 7-“Systems” on page 273, also e.g., Zack 1999a, 46ff.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Blackler 1995, Spender 1996a, see section 6.6.2-“Activity modeling” on page 250 for an account of the modeling of socially-distributed activity systems.

    Google Scholar 

  66. The term actor is preferred to agent as in the MIS literature agent regularly also refers to computer systems (intelligent agents). The old question whether computers can “think” and thus process and apply knowledge is out of the focus of this book (for a brilliant treatise of this topic see e.g., Dreyfus/Dreyfus 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  67. See also Segler 1985, 138, Wiegand 1996, 163f, Probst et al. 1998, 44, Willke 1998, 11, Zack 1999a, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See the perspective of transactive memory systems according to Wegner 1986

    Google Scholar 

  69. One of the best known applications of this distinction is by Nonaka 1991, 16, also e.g., Hedlund/Nonaka 1993, 118ff, Rüdiger/Vanini 1998 and Bonora/Revang 1993, 203ff who call it knowledge abstraction.

    Google Scholar 

  70. In his earlier work, Nonaka called the process of turning implicit into explicit knowledge articulation (Nonaka 1991, 99).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Examples are Rehäuser/Krcmar 1996, 14ff, Hansen et al. 1999, Sveiby 2001, Zack 1999a.

    Google Scholar 

  72. e.g., Neumann et al. 1998, McDermott 1999a, 104, Gray 2000, Mertens/Griese 2002, 47, Meso/Smith 2000, Alavi/Leidner 2001, Staab et al. 2001, 3ff, Hasan/Gould 2003, Riempp 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Borghoff/ Pareschi 1998, Schultze/Boland 2000, Riempp 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bullinger et al. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Maier et al. 2005, Strohmaier 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Conway 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Mentzas et al. 2001, 95f, Tsui 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Seifried/ Eppler 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Figge 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Borghoff/ Pareschi 1997, 1998, Ruggles 1997a, 3ff, Bach/Österle 1999, 22, Böhmann/Krcmar 1999, Astleitner/Schinagl 2000, 173f.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Koubek 2000, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Firestone 1999, 2003, Collins 2003, Fernandes et al. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Nedeß/ Jacob 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rao/ Goldman-Segall 1995, Habermann 1999, Lehner 2000, 323ff.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Stein/ Zwass 1995, Kühn/Abecker 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Source: Stein/Zwass 1995, 98.

    Google Scholar 

  87. E.g., Rogers 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Astleitner/ Schinagl 2000, 114ff.

    Google Scholar 

  89. E.g., Ismail 2002, 332.

    Google Scholar 

  90. E.g., Jonassen et al. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Astleitner/ Schinagl 2000, 131ff; Web-based education systems are also called Internetbased learning systems or on-line-learning systems.

    Google Scholar 

  92. An example for a software vendor that integrates a knowledge management platform and an e-learning environment formerly separated is Hyperwave with its KMS solution Hyperwave Information Server and Hyperwave Information Portal on the one hand and the Hyperwave E-Learning Suite on the other hand; see also Maier/Klosa 1999c; see section 7.1-“Technological roots” on page 273 for examples and a definition of the roots; see also the support Web site for this book http://iwi.uibk.ac.at/maier/kms/ for a list of KM tools and systems as well as e-learning suites available on the market.

    Google Scholar 

  93. See Hansen et al. 1999, see also chapter 5-“Strategy” on page 93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Foundation. In: Knowledge Management Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71408-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation