Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Developing an Innovative Knowledge Management
Implementation
Abdallah Al-Shawabkeh, Alexander K<strong>of</strong>inas and Mike Sharp
University <strong>of</strong> Greenwich, London, UK
A.A.F.Al-Shawabkeh@greenwich.ac.uk
a.k.k<strong>of</strong>inas@gre.ac.uk
M.W.Sharp@greenwich.ac.uk
Abstract: Knowledge management (KM) has been considered a key success factor in <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> an
organisation, especially in <strong>the</strong> current economic climate. Never<strong>the</strong>less, many KM initiatives have been unable to
manage knowledge resulting in failure. Companies and corporations hope that KM may somehow solve all <strong>the</strong>ir
existing and future problems <strong>of</strong>ten without defining those problems’ root causes. Starting a KM system with no
aim will end up in failure. Using different case studies from <strong>the</strong> literature, <strong>the</strong> analysis presented in this paper
focuses on <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>of</strong> KM implementation and is based on previous research done. The outcome <strong>of</strong> this
analysis and experience has led to <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> a new KM approach which has been subsequently tested
and verified. Using this newly formed KM approach, this paper provides a <strong>the</strong>oretical understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
processes needed to establish a knowledge management system in organisations.
Keywords: knowledge management (km), knowledge management approach/framework, knowledge
management success factors, people & culture and information technologies (it)
1. Introduction
According to researchers (Storey and Barnett, 2000; Wang and Wang, 2008), many Knowledge
Management (KM) systems fail to deliver on promises rendered. The reasons cited for <strong>the</strong>se failures
are a lack <strong>of</strong> careful understanding <strong>of</strong> knowledge, knowledge management and its processes (Carlile,
2004, Newell et al., 2004).
Some projects fail to account for <strong>the</strong> organisational culture; o<strong>the</strong>r projects do not develop <strong>the</strong> right
technological infrastructure while o<strong>the</strong>r projects fail to develop <strong>the</strong> human resources required
(Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Storey and Barnett, 2000). According to
Wong and Aspinwall (2004), implementation <strong>of</strong> KM may fail without proper guidance and a systematic
implementation that meets <strong>the</strong> diverse needs <strong>of</strong> KM systems. There is a great necessity for creating
and adapting systematic practices <strong>of</strong> managing knowledge building towards an effective KM approach
(Drucker, 1993).
A new KM approach should appraise <strong>the</strong> KM implementation process easing <strong>the</strong> transition from
<strong>the</strong>ory to practice. The challenge for managers facing <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong> a KM implementation is <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong>
thorough understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complexities <strong>of</strong> a KM system and <strong>the</strong> dismissal <strong>of</strong> its components and
structure. The suggested KM approach/framework aims to include all <strong>the</strong>se essential components,
and suggest <strong>the</strong> relevant connections among <strong>the</strong>m in order to facilitate <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a KM
system.
The processes for managing knowledge are <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge management
literature. For example Alavi and Leidner (2001) suggest that <strong>the</strong>re are four main knowledge
management processes: i. knowledge sharing, ii. knowledge storage, iii. knowledge transfer/sharing
and iv. knowledge application. I am going to add two knowledge management processes as
suggested by Hendriks and Vriens (1999): v. assessing <strong>the</strong> current position <strong>of</strong> intra-organisational
knowledge (A, B &C) and, vi. <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> evaluating knowledge gained (H). Thus I suggest in
Figure 2.1 that knowledge management encompasses <strong>the</strong> following six processes that here I have
presented <strong>the</strong>n in a circular progression from knowledge assessment to knowledge creation, storage,
transfer, application and evaluation.
1