Knowledge Elicitation Using Activity Theory and Delphi Technique for Supervision of Projects

  • Sanath Sukumaran
  • Akmal Rahim
  • Kanchana Chandran
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 172)


Even though many Knowledge Management initiatives are already in operation, most do not have the right approach when it comes to capturing tacit knowledge. This paper brings to light how social, cultural and organizational paradigms can be infused within a KM initiative to capture tacit and new knowledge. This research paper also brings to light a holistic approach to investigate, analyze, probe and document an activity system for a KM initiative. This case study based investigation uses Delphi techniques to elicit responses from experts from the lens of Activity Theory (AT). It probes into supervision of projects as a case on point to demonstrate how tacit knowledge could be elicited from a team of supervisors.


Activity Theory Delphi Technique Knowledge Management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., Fathian, M.: Exploring Failure-Factors of Implementing Knowledge Management Systems in Organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice (May 2005)Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R., Dulipovici, A.: The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, Atlanta (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Benbya, H.: Knowledge Management Systems Implementation: Lessons from the Silicon Valley. Chandos Publishing, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  4. Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L.: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y.: Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamaki, R. (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Fontain, M., Lesser, E.: Challenges In Managing Organizational Knowledge. IBM Institute For Knowledge-Based Organization Publication (2002)Google Scholar
  8. Hurley, T.A., Green, C.W.: Knowledge Management and the Nonprofit Industry: A Within and Between Approach. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., Bannon, L.: Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications. In: Blumenthal, B., Gornostaev, J., Unger, C. (eds.) EWHCI 1995. LNCS, vol. 1015, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  10. Lee, C.C., Egbu, C., Boyd, D., Xiao, H., Chinyo, E.: Knowledge Management for Small Medium Enterprise: Capturing and Communicating Learning and Experiences. Knowledge Management (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Rodriguez, H.: Activity theory and Cognitive Sciences. Perspectives on Activity Theory (1998), (retrieved)
  12. Stuter, L.M.: The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting (1996), doi:10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7Google Scholar
  13. Uden, L.: Activity Theory for Requirements Engineering. In: Argentina Symposium on Software Engineering (ASSE), September 10-11. Buenos Aires. University of Buenos Aires, Argentina (2001)Google Scholar
  14. Uden, L., Sukumaran, S., Chandran, K.: Requirements Elicitation for Knowledge Management Systems using Activity Theory (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanath Sukumaran
    • 1
  • Akmal Rahim
    • 1
  • Kanchana Chandran
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ComputingTaylor’s UniversityPetaling JayaMalaysia
  2. 2.Kuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations