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

Kenneth Grant
did not come to <strong>the</strong>m for KM projects, nor was KM seen as a specific discipline that should be brought
directly to bear within <strong>the</strong>ir consulting projects. Thus, to <strong>the</strong> degree that KM was seen as a
management consulting fad, advocated by consultants for market advantage and to sell services, this
is no longer a significant factor and <strong>the</strong> brief window for specific services in <strong>the</strong> KM area has
disappeared, at least from <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> major service providers.
Contrasting <strong>the</strong> Discourse and <strong>the</strong> Diffusion
KM and Strategy
KM continues to be a topic <strong>of</strong> strong interest for both academics and practitioners.
This is demonstrated by <strong>the</strong> discourse analysis and <strong>the</strong> five case studies. All <strong>the</strong> firms studied
recognize <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> knowledge to <strong>the</strong>ir business success and had developed strategies for
KM that represented a significant element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir business strategies and strategic intent. While <strong>the</strong>
specific strategies adopted did vary somewhat between <strong>the</strong> firms <strong>the</strong>re were a number <strong>of</strong> consistent
elements. Explicit strategies for KM were present, sometimes embedded within <strong>the</strong> firm’s wider
strategies, senior executives had responsibility for KM and organizational units had been established
to support KM activities in each firm.
KM and IT
The discourse analysis and case studies, demonstrate that a continued focus on IT is a dominant
<strong>the</strong>me within KM. Widespread use <strong>of</strong> IT to support KM is present in all firms. In most cases, this is not
<strong>the</strong> sub optimal "single community focus" criticised by Swan and Scarbrough (2002) and Binney
(2001). Ra<strong>the</strong>r, much more coordinated efforts are visible, with a focus on user needs and <strong>the</strong>
recognition that <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> such systems is voluntary.
While much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IT implementation for KM during <strong>the</strong> early years focused on building <strong>of</strong> repositories
in which to store explicit knowledge, all five cases indicated a much increased importance <strong>of</strong> a variety
<strong>of</strong> communication tools, mixing <strong>the</strong> presentation <strong>of</strong> explicit knowledge with <strong>the</strong> views and experiences
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionals in <strong>the</strong> firm. While some criticisms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se tools were present,
overall <strong>the</strong>re was strong support for <strong>the</strong> usefulness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IT tools for each firm's knowledge practices.
KM and Processes
A similar picture emerges when examining <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> KM processes. There is strong academic
interest and a solid level <strong>of</strong> practitioner interest demonstrated in <strong>the</strong> discourse and this is strongly
supported in <strong>the</strong> case studies. While it is reasonable to argue that KIFs, like <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional services
firms studied, have always had processes to deal with knowledge creation and knowledge transfer,
<strong>the</strong> emphasis has changed over <strong>the</strong> last 10-15 years, with firms establishing formal processes to
support knowledge creation and transfer, along with <strong>the</strong> introduction and support <strong>of</strong> less formal
processes across <strong>the</strong> firms. These processes address both <strong>the</strong> capture <strong>of</strong> knowledge and <strong>the</strong>
establishment <strong>of</strong> tools, techniques and communities to ensure its sharing.
Use <strong>of</strong> KM Models
The findings demonstrate a significant contradiction between <strong>the</strong> discourse and diffusion regarding
knowledge models. The literature review indicated a broad range <strong>of</strong> views as to <strong>the</strong> nature and use <strong>of</strong>
knowledge models with critics identifying ontological differences, discipline differences and a general
lack <strong>of</strong> evidence supporting <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> models presented or <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir usefulness in practice. The
study indicates that, in this area, little has changed. The practitioners had little knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> field
<strong>of</strong> KM, o<strong>the</strong>r than that which related to <strong>the</strong>ir own pr<strong>of</strong>essional discipline. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir discourse about
knowledge and knowledge management used discipline or firm-specific concepts and terms. Only
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals with specific responsibility for KM demonstrated any familiarity with <strong>the</strong>se concepts and
<strong>the</strong>y reported a reluctance to use <strong>the</strong>se terms within <strong>the</strong> firm.
Each firm did hire KM pr<strong>of</strong>essionals who were expected to provide a bridge between <strong>the</strong> firms internal
models and practices and any relevant <strong>the</strong>ory from <strong>the</strong> KM field.
197