Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

An Examination <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Management as a
Management Fashion
Kenneth Grant
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
kagrant@ryerson.ca
Abstract: Knowledge Management (KM) emerged as a significant topic <strong>of</strong> management interest in <strong>the</strong> mid-
1990s. By <strong>the</strong> early 2000s, KM practices were widespread across organizations and have become a topic <strong>of</strong>
widespread interest to researchers in several disciplines. However, this widespread interest and adoption also
raised significant concerns. Researchers identified many failures in KM implementation and some argued that
KM was simply <strong>the</strong> latest in a series <strong>of</strong> management fads. KM is a management innovation -- a concept <strong>of</strong>fering
opportunities to improve organizational performance and competitive position. Innovation adoption is <strong>of</strong>ten as a
rational phenomenon, following patterns identified by Rogers (2003). However, an alternate view on innovation is
proposed by Abrahamson (1991), who suggests that such decisions are <strong>of</strong>ten not rational but ra<strong>the</strong>r driven by
managers’ need to be seen to be innovative, following management fads and fashions. This paper examines
whe<strong>the</strong>r KM is a management fad or fashion. It uses <strong>the</strong> two-stage framework proposed by Abrahamson (1991)
to examine <strong>the</strong> discourse and <strong>the</strong> diffusion <strong>of</strong> specific innovations. An extensive bibliographic review was carried
out over a 20-year period, from 1990-2009, to determine patterns in <strong>the</strong> discourse. Next, using a set <strong>of</strong> seven
Themes developed from this review, <strong>the</strong> actual patterns <strong>of</strong> diffusion <strong>of</strong> KM in five pr<strong>of</strong>essional services firms were
examined. While <strong>the</strong> bibliometric analysis demonstrated that KM has sustained a high level <strong>of</strong> interest over <strong>the</strong>
last 10 years and is not seen to present <strong>the</strong> typical characteristics <strong>of</strong> a management fad, actual practice in <strong>the</strong>
field differs from what is recommended within <strong>the</strong> literature.
Keywords: knowledge management, strategy, innovation, management fashion
1. Introduction
Using knowledge effectively is <strong>of</strong>ten argued to be key to competitive success in today’s global
economy. Not only is <strong>the</strong> effective management <strong>of</strong> knowledge argued to be a critical element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
innovations needed to be successful, Knowledge Management (KM) is, <strong>of</strong> itself, a major "innovation”.
The field <strong>of</strong> KM emerged into prominence in <strong>the</strong> mid-1990s with a dramatic growth in interest in both
business and academe. By <strong>the</strong> early 2000s, concerns were being expressed by both industry leaders
and researchers about <strong>the</strong> field, questioning its level <strong>of</strong> success, and, in some cases, its true value.
Some argued that it was not something <strong>of</strong> true value and was merely a management fad, <strong>the</strong> latest in
a long line <strong>of</strong> proposed innovations that were attractive to managers as possible solutions to common
problems but had no sustainable value. This paper examines KM as a Management Fashion Theory.
2. Literature review
2.1 Innovation as management fashion
Innovation diffusion is <strong>of</strong>ten presented as a rational phenomenon. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> most frequently used
tool to examine adoption <strong>of</strong> new innovations is <strong>the</strong> Theory <strong>of</strong> Diffusion <strong>of</strong> Innovations, developed by
Rogers in <strong>the</strong> 1960s (Rogers, 2003). For Rogers, “an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is
perceived as new by an individual or o<strong>the</strong>r unit <strong>of</strong> adoption” and “diffusion is <strong>the</strong> process by which an
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> a social
system”. A successful innovation is adopted by a high proportion <strong>of</strong> its target population, with several
stages <strong>of</strong> adoption.
Abrahamson (1991), arguing that <strong>the</strong> management innovation-diffusion literature is dominated by a
perspective that assumes that rational adopters make independent and technically efficient choices,
suggests that, frequently, this is not <strong>the</strong> case. He proposes that <strong>the</strong> diffusion <strong>of</strong> “innovative
administrative technologies” (prescriptions for designing organizational structures and cultures) can
<strong>of</strong>ten be described as management fads or fashions, arguing that innovation in organisations is <strong>of</strong>ten
driven by management fashion, “largely a cultural phenomenon, shaped by norms <strong>of</strong> rationality”
(Abrahamson, 1996).
Questioning <strong>the</strong> commonly held management view that “innovation” is a good and necessary activity,
he suggests that researchers should take a more skeptical view, especially about <strong>the</strong> “big ideas” that
form <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> much management attention. While some innovations diffuse widely and become
190