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

Abdallah Al-Shawabkeh, Alexander K<strong>of</strong>inas and Mike Sharp
developed by Apostolou and Mentzas (1998), and Lai and Chu (2002).Wong and Aspinwall (2004)
have stated <strong>the</strong> need <strong>of</strong> KM frameworks that provide more clear guidance on <strong>the</strong> implementation
phase, which require not only answering "What is KM?" but also describing and advising how to
implement KM.
1.2 Why a KM Implementation Approach is needed
Implementing a knowledge management approach that only concentrates on one particular aspect
such as information technology leaving out o<strong>the</strong>r aspects, would not bring out <strong>the</strong> desired outcome for
<strong>the</strong> organisation. KM is a complex complementary process (Arora, 2002). For example, managing
explicit knowledge without giving attention to tacit knowledge may end up <strong>the</strong> whole process with
failure. An appropriate KM approach must consider all different aspects, and must be aligned with
organisational strategy for accomplishing <strong>the</strong> successful implementation (Arora, 2002). According to
Wong and Aspinwall (2004), <strong>the</strong> main reasons for developing a comprehensive KM framework are:
To provide <strong>the</strong> clarification <strong>of</strong> KM domain increasing <strong>the</strong> awareness, helping to understand <strong>the</strong>
processes and activities concerned.
To help understand <strong>the</strong> KM in a broader perspective <strong>of</strong>fering a holistic view <strong>of</strong> KM.
To enable communication <strong>of</strong> KM in <strong>the</strong> organisation providing <strong>the</strong> common language for people.
Make easier <strong>the</strong> communication between managers and employees.
To outline <strong>the</strong> elements, processes and influences, showing <strong>the</strong> scope and phases <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tasks
that need to be done.
To help <strong>the</strong> managers in auditing <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> KM implementation as it provides a detailed
checklist to be followed.
To help <strong>the</strong> managers to control <strong>the</strong> whole process <strong>of</strong> KM implementation, ensuring that all
organisational efforts are coordinated in systematically.
In <strong>the</strong> same context, Wong has proposed four main elements to have to be remembered when
developing a KM framework, <strong>the</strong>se are:
The Structure.
Knowledge types or knowledge resources.
KM processes or activities.
KM influences or factors.
A clear framework should include all milestones and tasks in an order that would sustain a successful
implementation <strong>of</strong> KM. Thus it is necessary to organise and divide <strong>the</strong> activities into separate
segments and different stages as needed (Wiig et al., 1997; and Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001).
The framework should make clear identification <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> knowledge in <strong>the</strong> organisation
giving <strong>the</strong> opportunity to align different management strategies for explicit and tacit knowledge.
Managing explicit knowledge which is created by individuals and can be obtained from outer sources
can be done via different tools such as a knowledge map; lessons learnt databases, groupware and
electronic data interchange. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, managing tacit knowledge can be done through listing
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experts possessing this tacit knowledge, group meeting, face to face conversations and
practice forums (Sanghani, 2009).
The next logical step in KM framework is to encompass <strong>the</strong> process and activities that effectively
handle knowledge assets, as <strong>the</strong>se processes are considered <strong>the</strong> main activities in <strong>the</strong> knowledge
cycle (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001). Holsapple and Joshi (2002) assert that one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main
tasks <strong>of</strong> KM is to manage organizational knowledge resources to boost organizational effectiveness.
Both organizational knowledge-related efficacy and return from knowledge assets depends on KM as
it manages effective knowledge processes (Wiig, 1997). Additionally, <strong>the</strong> awareness about KM
enablers and disablers is vital for successful KM implementation (Sanghani, 2009). Obviously, <strong>the</strong>
acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> those factors will help to make <strong>the</strong> optimal decisions, which is about <strong>the</strong>
measures and future course <strong>of</strong> actions directed to use <strong>the</strong> enablers for <strong>the</strong> organisational advantage
and to decrease <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> disablers (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004).
Organisational culture has been considered as <strong>the</strong> crucial aspect that influence <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> KM
implementation (Jarrar, 2002; Apostolou and Mentzas, 1998; Liebowitz, 2000) through ei<strong>the</strong>r enabling
5