Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain

& Research Article

Exploring Secondary Activities of theKnowledge Chain

Clyde Holsapple1* and Kiku Jones2

1University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA2University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

Researchers, marketers, and pundits often assert that knowledge management (KM) is animportant, or even essential, basis for competitiveness. The Knowledge Chain Model hasbeen advanced as a basis for understanding linkages between KM activities and organizationalperformance. Based on a general ontology of KM, this model identifies five primary and foursecondary activities as focal points for enhancing an organization’s competitive position. Bothanecdotes and survey results support the model. A prior paper explored the primary classes ofactivity found in the Knowledge Chain Model, finding that each is comprised of distinctsubclasses that are candidates for enhancing organizational performance. Here, we similarlyexplore the model’s secondary KM activity classes to uncover the subclasses of which theyare comprised, thereby arriving at a more detailed understanding of their potential for launch-ing competitive initiatives. A literature review yielded over 300 variations of the four second-ary activities. We consolidate these into 29 distinct activity types and organize them intothe four secondary activity classes. A typology of activity types is developed for each class.The result is a more in-depth version of the Knowledge Chain Model that gives greater gui-dance to practitioners in assessing current KM initiatives or striving to incorporate KM intotheir organizations and their competitive strategies. Together with the earlier primary activityclass paper, a total of 61 distinct activity types have been identified for the Knowledge ChainModel. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge and its effective management are majorfactors in determining the level of an organization’sperformance and its degree of competitiveness. Ifwe accept this proposition, then it is vital to devel-op a detailed understanding of knowledge man-agement (KM) activities. What KM activitiesshould be considered by persons who directknowledge initiatives in the organizations? For aparticular organization embedded in a particularsituation, how well (e.g., relative to competitors)is each KM activity being executed? For that

organization, are there methods and/or technolo-gies that can be adopted in executing a KM activitythat will improve its performance, give a competi-tive edge, or at least avoid falling behind? Thelatter two questions cannot be answered sys-tematically without having an answer to the firstquestion.

This paper, together with a companion paper(Holsapple and Jones, 2004), develops an answerfor the question of specifically what KM act-ivities are candidates for consideration in assessingand designing knowledge initiatives. The compa-nion paper focused on five classes of KMactivity that actually occur in the manifestationof knowledge management episodes: know-ledge acquisition, knowledge assimilation, knowl-edge selection, knowledge generation, andknowledge emission. An episode is triggered by

Knowledge and Process Management Volume 12 Number 1 pp 3–31 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.219

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: Clyde Holsapple, 425B Gatton Business andEconomics Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY40506-0034, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

the recognition of a need for some knowledge or aknowledge-enhancing opportunity. If successful,the episode results in the satisfaction of that needor the exploitation of that opportunity. The fiveclasses of activity that can be found in a KM epi-sode were taken to a much more detailed level inthe companion paper: 32 specific types of KM activ-ity belonging to the five classes (Holsapple andJones, 2004).

Here, we focus on four classes of KM activity thatinfluence what happens within and among KM epi-sodes. Such influences may be in the form of con-straining, sequencing, promoting, enabling,facilitating, motivating, and so forth. The four KMactivity classes explored here are knowledge mea-surement, knowledge control, knowledge coordi-nation, and knowledge leadership. Each isdeveloped in much greater detail, resulting in theidentification of 29 distinct types of KM activityto complement the 32 identified in the companionpaper. Together, the 61 activities comprise a fairlycomprehensive lens for evaluation of where anorganization stands in its KM initiatives and com-petencies. They also serve to highlight areas thatstrategists should consider when devising ways(i.e., methods, technologies) to improve organiza-tional performance and competitiveness.

We begin with a background examination of theKnowledge Chain Model as a theoretical basis forour exploration of the four activity classes. Next,the methodology used to develop these in greaterdetail is explained. The results are then presentedin terms of 29 distinct KM activity types organizedinto four taxonomies. We conclude with a discus-sion of limitations and future research avenuesrelated to the resultant version 2 of the KnowledgeChain Model.

BACKGROUND

The objective of KM within and across organiza-tions is to ensure that the right knowledge is avail-able in the right forms to the right processors at theright times for the right cost in order to secure theright level of organizational performance. Meetingthis objective for a particular organization, havingits own unique collection of resources andembedded in its own environmental niche, is achallenging task for the KM practitioner. In anattempt to achieve this objective, workers in aknowledge-based organization perform variouspatterns of KM activities linked by knowledgeflows. A variety of methodologies and technologiesare candidates for performing, enabling, or facili-tating these activities and the flows that connect

them. Which of these is ‘best’ or suitable for a spe-cific KM activity depends on the type of that activ-ity, the available organizational resources, and ahost of environmental factors (e.g., governmental,economic, social).

Thus, an initial issue that must be confronted inefforts to meet the objective of KM concerns the iden-tification, understanding, and careful considerationof KM activities. One approach to this issue hasbeen advanced by the Knowledge Chain Model(KCM). Just as Porter’s (1985) Value Chain Modelidentifies business activities that an organizationcan focus on as sources of competitive advantage,the KCM identifies KM activities that an organiza-tion can focus on to improve its competitiveness(Holsapple and Singh, 2001). The KCM identifiesnine distinct, generic classes of activities that an orga-nization performs in the course of managing itsknowledge resources. Each kind of KM activity canyield a competitive advantage if designed and exe-cuted better than those of competitor organizations.Both case anecdotes and a survey of KM practi-tioners support the existence of the KM activities inthe KCM and their potential for being performed inways that increase an organization’s productivity,agility, innovation, and/or reputation (Singh, 2000).

The theoretical basis for the KCM is a KM ontol-ogy that was collaboratively engineered throughthe efforts of an international panel of prominentKM practitioners and academicians (Joshi, 1998;Holsapple and Joshi, 2002). This ontology identifies(a) five classes of activities that are performed invarious patterns within KM episodes, and (b) fourclasses of managerial activities that support andgovern what happens within and across KM epi-sodes (Holsapple and Joshi, 2004). In the KCM,the former are called the primary KM activitiesand the latter are called the secondary KM activ-ities (Holsapple and Singh, 2000).

As summarized in Table 1, the five primaryclasses of KM activity are acquisition, selection,generation, assimilation, and emission. As sum-marized in Table 2, the four secondary classes ofKM activity are measurement, control, coordina-tion, and leadership. Figure 1 illustrates the KCM,indicating that various combinations and imple-mentations of the primary and secondary activitiescan lead to organizational learning (i.e., changes inan organization’s state of knowledge) and projec-tions (i.e., release of organizational resources intothe environment). Organizational resources (e.g.,knowledge, people, material, finances) and envir-onmental factors may also shape organizationallearning and projections. The KMC’s basic proposi-tion is that an organization’s ability to learn andproject (a) depends on how the nine classes of

RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management

4 C. Holsapple and K. Jones

KM activity are designed and implemented, and(b) largely contributes to its viability and successin a competitive environment, along one or moreof the following PAIR dimensions: improving Pro-ductivity, enhancing Agility, fostering Innovation,and enhancing Reputation.

The KCM can be further developed to give amore in-depth view of the types of activities

involved in the nine classes. For instance, whatare the main types of knowledge measurementthat an organization does or could perform? Whattypes of knowledge control activities should a KMdirector consider? Knowing the answers to suchquestions fleshes out the KCM at a more detailedlevel, yielding what we refer to as version 2 ofthe KCM. The specific types of activities can act

Table 1 Primary activity classes in the Knowledge Chain Model (adapted from Holsapple and Singh, 2001)

Activity class Description

Knowledge acquisition Acquiring knowledge from external sources and making it suitable for subsequent use

Knowledge selection Selecting needed knowledge from internal sources and making it suitablefor subsequent use

Knowledge generation Producing knowledge by either discovery or derivation from existing knowledge

Knowledge assimilation Altering the state of an organization’s knowledge resources by distributingand storing acquired, selected, or generated knowledge

Knowledge emission Embedding knowledge into organizational outputs for release into the environment

Table 2 Secondary activity classes in the Knowledge Chain Model (adapted from Holsapple and Singh, 2001)

Activity class Description

Knowledge measurement Assessing values of knowledge resources, knowledge processors, and their deployment

Knowledge control Ensuring that needed knowledge processors and resources are available insufficient quality and quantity, subject to security requirements

Knowledge coordination Managing dependencies among KM activities to ensure that proper processesand resources are brought to bear adequately at appropriate times

Knowledge leadership Establishing conditions that enable and facilitate fruitful conduct of KM

Figure 1 The Knowledge Chain Model (adapted from Holsapple and Singh, 2000)

Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring Secondary Activities of the Knowledge Chain 5

as a checklist for KM planners and implementerswhen developing knowledge-based competitivestrategies. This more detailed version of the KCMalso provides further guidance to researchers ofKM competitiveness issues, indicating more speci-fic types of KM activity that deserve investigationfrom the standpoint of enhancing organizationalperformance.

A methodology to further develop the KCM hasbeen advanced by Holsapple and Jones (2003). Ithas been applied to five of the KM classes, collec-tively known as the primary KM activities, toreveal 32 distinct types of KM activities (Holsappleand Jones, 2004). The result forms a major compo-nent for a version 2 of the KCM, giving KM practi-tioners and researchers 32 distinct types of KMactivities to consider rather than the five broadKM primary classes. To round out version 2 ofthe KCM, we use the same methodology to developthe four secondary classes of the KCM. Following adiscussion of the approach used to explore the sec-ondary activities, we detail the resultant 29 specifictypes of secondary KM activities and organizethem into four typologies serving as a detailedchecklist to guide the development and/or studyof knowledge-based competitive strategy.

METHODOLOGY

The method for further developing the KCMinvolves a four-step process: collection, classifica-tion, consolidation, and construction (Holsappleand Jones, 2004). First, KM activities described inthe literature were identified. Second, each of thoseactivities classified as secondary was assigned toone of the four secondary classes. Third, withineach secondary class, duplicates were eliminatedand similar items were consolidated. Fourth, atypology was constructed as a way to organizethe activity types within each of the four secondaryclasses of activities.

In the collection phase, a fairly comprehensiveset of KM activities was gathered from a diverseset of researchers’ and practitioners’ publishedworks. Many of the activities are extracted fromthe two-volume basic reference book, Handbook onKnowledge Management, journal articles (primarilythose published in special issues devoted to knowl-edge management), topical articles appearing insuch periodicals as Knowledge Management, presen-tations/discussions by KM researchers and practi-tioners, and various other documents. For practicalreasons, when the review of literature sources wasno longer revealing anything new, the collectionphase of the study was ended. The collection phaseresulted in a list of over 500KM activities.

In the classification phase, each candidate wasdetermined to be either a primary or a secondaryactivity. Over 300 candidates were determined tobe secondary activities. Next, each of the secondaryactivity candidates was assigned to the appropriatesecondary activity class. It turned out that all of thesecondary candidates could be categorized into atleast one of the four knowledge chain activityclasses shown in Table 2.

In the consolidation phase, duplicate activitieswere deleted. Among the remaining activities,those that had similar emphasis but differentphrasing were consolidated into a single activitydescription reflecting the emphasis (often usingthe phrasing of one of the consolidated activities).Upon completion of the consolidation phase, over195 of the secondary candidate activities remained.

In the construction phase, the list of activitytypes for each of the four classes was analyzed insearch of a conceptual structure. Within the con-ceptual structure, kindred activities were clusteredinto the same activity type. Out of the more than195 secondary candidate activities, such clusteringyielded 29 distinct activity types across the foursecondary activity classes. Next a typology wasconstructed for the activity types belonging toeach class. Construction of the typologies was aniterative process in search of conceptual patterns.We realize that there are other logical ways inwhich the activity types could be structured (e.g.,alphabetical, chronological); however, we choseconceptual structuring. This iterative process ofanalyzing the patterns was continued until a typol-ogy resulted that accounted for all activity types ina simple fashion.

KM ACTIVITY TYPES FOR THESECONDARY KNOWLEDGE CHAINCLASSES

Within a KM episode, the KM activities are notnecessarily performed in any strict sequence, butrather there can be various sequences with overlapsand interactions among them. According to theKCM and underlying ontology, the secondaryactivities (along with available organizationalresources and environmental factors) influencethe way in which all of these variations unfold. Inthe following sections, we give a description ofeach of the 29 activity types spanning the four sec-ondary activity classes and the typologies.

Knowledge measurement

Recall from Table 2 that knowledge measurement isdefined as assessing values of knowledge



resources, knowledge processors, and their deploy-ment. This includes quantitative methods, qua-litative assessment, performance review, andbenchmarking. Knowledge measurement is thebasis for evaluation of the other secondary activ-ities, identifying and recognizing value-addingprocessors and resources, assessing and com-paring the execution of KM activities, and evaluat-ing the impacts of an organization’s conduct ofKM on the bottom-line performance. Table 3 lists asampling of the specific knowledge measurementactivities at the end of the classification phase. Theconsolidation phase then eliminated overlaps andredundancies in the table. For the full listof knowledge measurement activitiesgathered from the literature see Table A1 inAppendix A.

Analyzing the consolidation results, we find thatthey can be categorized into two main groups:determining/developing measures and applyingmeasures. Table 4 shows the sample grouping ofthe consolidated activities (see Table A2 in Appen-dix A for the full list of grouped activities). For

example, developing qualitative and quantitativemeasures, benchmarking, and determining whatshould be measured are all grouped under deter-mining/developing measures. Each of these dealswith deciding what needs to be measured and/orhow the measure is to be developed. After thoseactivities have been performed, the actual mea-sures are then applied to KM. These activities aregrouped together as applying measures. Somesuch activities include: performing a knowledgeaudit, estimating intellectual capital ROI, using aknowledge-sharing effectiveness inventory, andmeasuring code reuse.

Further analysis of these main groups of knowl-edge measurement during the construction phasehas helped to refine the candidate activities intothe distinct types shown in Figure 2. Under deter-mining/developing measures, two distinct typesemerge from the list: determining/developingquantitative measures and determining/develop-ing qualitative measures. Determining/developingquantitative measures includes determining whichframework is best (flow, matrix, balance scorecard),

Table 3 Sample knowledge measurement activities (note that the sources in this table and subsequent tables are listedin alphabetical order by author)

Citation Knowledge measurement activity

Conway (2003) Measuring templates usedMeasuring code reuseMeasuring best practices used/submitted

Hanley and Malafsky (2003) Including both qualitative and quantitative measuresUsing system performance logs for system measuresDetermining who stakeholders areMeasuring time, money, and personnel time saved by implementing KM initiativeMeasuring the success and failure rate of programs linked to the KMassets over time

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Reviewing employee KM performanceEvaluating knowledge manipulation skills inventoryAppraising intangible assetsEstimating intellectual capital ROI

Jamieson and Handzic (2003) Identifying the KM assets and their associated risks

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Using a knowledge-sharing effectiveness inventory

Massey et al. (2002) Linking KM to financial results or bottom-line performanceMeasuring the impacts of KM with both hard financial data and softnon-financial implications

Mullich (2001) Establishing success metrics early

O’Dell (2000) BenchmarkingMonitoring the health of KM

O’Dell et al. (2003) Asking users how the tools have helped them achieve business objectives

Smith and McKeen (2003b) Using different measures for different stakeholdersConducting customer satisfaction surveys

Stevens (2000) Performing a knowledge audit

van der Spek et al. (2003) Identifying most important key performance indicators (KPI)



Table 4 Sample groupings of knowledge measurement activities

Knowledge measurement group Knowledge measurement consolidate activities

Determining/developing measures BenchmarkingIncluding both qualitative and quantitative measuresEstablishing success metrics earlyIdentifying most important key performance indicators (KPI)Using different measures for different stakeholders

Applying measures Performing a knowledge auditReviewing employee KM performanceEvaluating knowledge manipulation skills inventoryMeasuring templates usedMeasuring code reuseIdentifying the KM assets and their associated risksMeasuring best practices used/submittedUsing system performance logs for system measuresDetermining who stakeholders areConducting customer satisfaction surveysAppraising intangible assetsEstimating intellectual capital ROIMonitoring the health of KMUsing a knowledge-sharing effectiveness inventoryAsking users how the tools have helped them achieve business objectivesMeasuring time, money, and personnel time saved by implementing KM initiativeMeasuring the success and failure rate of programs linked to the KM assetsover timeMeasuring the impacts of KM with both hard financial data and softnon-financial implications

Figure 2 Distinct knowledge measurement types



establishing success metrics, determining key per-formance Indicators, using conservative numbers,measuring what is statistically important, andbenchmarking. Determining/developing qualita-tive measures includes developing anecdotal mea-sures, qualitative benchmarking, and determiningwhich qualitative measures to include.

Under applying measures, seven distinct types ofapplying measures emerge: measuring knowledgeresources, measuring KM abilities/skills, measur-ing KM activities, tracking stakeholder information,valuing knowledge, managing/monitoring KM,and measuring effects of KM. ‘Measuring knowl-edge resources’ would include knowing what theorganization already knows, creating and catalo-ging the corporate memory, and performingknowledge audits. ‘Measuring KM abilities/skills’includes the measurement of human and computerKM abilities/skills. The ‘measurement of KM activ-ities’ includes activities such as tracking the use ofthe KM system and additions made by employees.‘Tracking stakeholder information’ includes whatthe stakeholders need to know, what their opi-nions/comments/questions are, and conductingsatisfaction surveys. ‘Valuing knowledge’ includesappraising intangible assets and estimating intellec-tual capital ROI. ‘Managing/monitoring KM’includes activities that assess the state of KM plan-ning and implementation. ‘Measuring effects ofKM’ deals with identifying the impacts KM hashad on individuals and the organization. Therefore,

a total of nine distinct types were formed withinknowledge measurement.

Knowledge control

Recall from Table 2 that knowledge control is definedas ensuring that needed knowledge processors andresources are available in sufficient quality andquantity, subject to security requirements. Control-ling the quality of knowledge is a significant issuefor KM, because the value of knowledge andreturns achieved from knowledge resourcesdepend on its quality. This point is made evidentin the recent New York Times fiasco (Simon andGilgoff, 2003). This scandal has strongly affectedthe New York Times’ reputational aspect of competi-tiveness. While the New York Times once set thestandard for journalistic quality and reputation,readers are now questioning not only the articlesthat have been noted to have mistakes, but thequality of other knowledge emitted from thissource. The New York Times management did nothave the appropriate knowledge control activitiesin place in order to prevent this type of situation.Anecdotes such as this show the importance ofthis type of KM activity.

Protection, another aspect of knowledge control,involves protection from loss, obsolescence,unauthorized exposure, unauthorized modifica-tion, and erroneous assimilation. Table 5 lists asampling of specific knowledge control activitiesidentified by the end of the classification phase.

Table 5 Sample knowledge control activities

Citation Knowledge control activity

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Reducing costs, risks, learning curves, and start-up time

Davis and Harrison (2001) Pruning the intellectual property portfolio regularlyMaintaining intellectual property

Delio (1998) Providing open access to collected information

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Ensuring legal protection of knowledgeImproving defect analysis and customer service

Jamieson and Handzic (2003) Valuating and prioritizing risksIdentifying existing controls and security measures over the assets

Massey et al. (2002) Integrating a range of skills and expertise on the project teamDrawing from a range of skills, independent from functional influence thatmay serve to upset the balanceEnsuring sufficient resources

O’Dell (2000) Realigning the organization’s structure and budgetManaging growth and control chaos

O’Dell et al. (2003) Providing adequate knowledge for the technology involved

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Using internal audits

Oriel (2001) Managing the cost of intellectual capital

Smith and McKeen (2003b) Charging back the costs of services



The consolidation phase then eliminated overlapsand redundancies in the table. For the full list ofknowledge control activities gathered from the lit-erature see Table B1 in Appendix B.

Analyzing the consolidation results, we find thatthey can be categorized into two main groups: KMresource control and process governance. Table 6shows sample groupings of the consolidated activ-ities (see Table B2 in Appendix B for the full list).Activities such as managing the cost of intellectualcapital are placed in the KM resource control groupbecause they deal with KM resources. On the otherhand, activities such as improving defect analysisare in the process governance group because theydeal with the governing aspects of control.

Further analysis of these two main groups dur-ing the construction phase led to refinements inthe knowledge control typology as shown in

Figure 3. Four distinct types are within the KMresource control group. They are controlling finan-cial resources available for KM, controlling KMprocessors, controlling quality, and auditingknowledge. The ‘controlling financial resourcesavailable’ type deals with ensuring that there areadequate financial resources for KM. For example,finding resources for a pilot test and allocatingresources for knowledge-sharing programs wouldbe considered this type of activity. ‘ControllingKM processors’ includes both human and compu-ter processors. This would include providing ade-quate knowledge for technology use andassigning people specifically to knowledge man-agement activities. ‘Controlling quality’ activitytypes deal with ensuring the knowledge withinthe organization is accurate and up to date. Activ-ities such as pruning the intellectual property

Table 6 Sample groupings of knowledge control candidates

Knowledge control group Knowledge control consolidated activities

KM resource control Realigning the organization’s structure and budgetReducing costs, risks, learning curves, and start-up timeManaging the cost of intellectual capitalUsing internal auditsProviding adequate knowledge for the technology involvedPruning the intellectual property portfolio regularly

Governance Ensuring legal protection of knowledgeImproving defect analysis and customer serviceIdentifying existing controls and security measures over the assetsManaging growth and control chaos

Figure 3 Distinct knowledge control types



portfolio would be considered this type of activity.‘Auditing knowledge’ activity types are concernedwith inspecting the knowledge within the organi-zation. Performing an internal audit is an exampleof this type of activity.

Three distinct types are located within the pro-cess governance group. These types are protect-ing/providing access controls, using a riskmanagement standard, and managing/monitoringKM. ‘Protecting/providing access controls’ dealswith determining what knowledge flows are possi-ble and, if a knowledge flow is possible, what kindof flow we want. Activities such as developingtechnological protection of organizational knowl-edge and making knowledge available to allemployees except where there is a demonstratedneed for confidentiality or protection of privacyare examples of this type of activity. Once theknowledge flows and needed protections are deter-mined, the organization must determine ways inwhich to enforce regulations on the knowledgeprocessing. The second and third types of activitiesunder process governance deal with this aspect.‘Using a risk management standard’ includes activ-ities such as determining the likelihood, conse-quence, and level of risk associated with assets.‘Managing/monitoring KM’ includes activitiessuch as establishing or enforcing controls on theperformance of KM activities and improving defectanalysis and customer service.

Knowledge coordination

As noted in Table 2, knowledge coordination isdefined as managing dependencies among KMactivities to ensure that proper processes andresources are brought to bear adequately at appro-priate times. It involves managing dependenciesamong knowledge resources, among knowledgemanipulation activities, between knowledgeresources and other resources (i.e., financial,human, and material), and between knowledgeresources and KM activities. Knowledge coordina-tion involves marshaling sufficient skills for execut-ing various activities, arrangement of thoseactivities in time, and integrating knowledge pro-cessing with an organization’s operations. Table 7lists a sampling of specific knowledge coordinationactivities identified by the end of the classificationphase. The consolidation phase then eliminatedoverlaps and redundancies in the table. See TableC1 in Appendix C for the full list of knowledgecoordination activities gathered from the literature.

Analyzing the consolidation results, we find thatthey can be categorized into two main groups:structuring efforts and securing efforts. Table 8

shows sample groupings of the consolidated activ-ities (see Table C2 in Appendix C for the full list).Activities such as developing a common processvocabulary and providing the appropriate techno-logical architecture for KM are considered structur-ing efforts. These activities deal with establishingthe structure whereby KM will be implemented.Activities such as aligning rewards and perfor-mance evaluations and demonstrating the indivi-dual and group value of shared knowledge dealwith securing efforts. Such activities are concernedwith ensuring that management and employees aresufficiently motivated and have proper incentivesfor executing the organization’s knowledge work.

Further analysis of the two main groups helpsorganize the activities into the typology of knowl-edge coordination shown in Figure 4. Four distinctgroups are found in the structuring efforts cate-gory: establishing communication patterns, build-ing infrastructure, structuring knowledge work,and allocating knowledge workers. ‘Establishingcommunication patterns’ deals with developing acommon format for individuals in the organizationto communicate with one another. Once the com-munication patterns are developed, the infrastruc-ture is built in order to facilitate them. Activitiessuch as creating supportive infrastructure capabil-ities by including extensive IT applications forcommunication, collaboration, information access,and automated reasoning are considered ‘buildinginfrastructure’ type activities. ‘Structuring knowl-edge work’ includes developing the patterns forKM episodes. This includes configuring knowledgeactivities within a KM episode and configuring theKM episodes themselves. ‘Allocating knowledgeworkers’ includes assigning appropriate processorsto KM activities, assigning people to specific KMactivities, selecting qualified employees to partici-pate in product development team, and usingbest practice teams.

Three distinct types are found in the securingefforts category: explaining KM to employees,establishing incentives and motivating employees,and securing sponsorship. ‘Explaining KM toemployees’ is concerned with ensuring all employ-ees understand what KM is and why it is impor-tant. This includes activities such ascommunicating the results of pilot testing, usingsuccessful best practices as examples, and usingstorytelling. ‘Establishing incentives and motivat-ing employees’ is concerned with developingrewards for knowledge workers and showingthem the individual benefits that can result fromparticipating in KM. Activities such as rewardingemployees for learning and sharing with otherdepartments, demonstrating the individual and



Table 7 Sample knowledge coordination activities

Citation Knowledge coordination activity

Allard (2003) Discouraging knowledge hoarding and reward knowledge creation

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Providing access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themProviding the right information in a context that aids decision makingProviding an infrastructure for electronic and social networking to developnew products and servicesValuing individual learning by rewarding it and leveraging it to the enterprise level

Bort (2001) Providing the appropriate network infrastructure

Chiem (2001) Rewarding knowledge sharing

Delio (1998) Ensuring access to needed technologyMaking sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KMDemonstrating the individual and group value of shared knowledge

Eisenhart (2001) Providing appropriate technological architecture for KM

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Determining appropriate communication channels for knowledge flowsConfiguring knowledge management episodesAssigning appropriate processors to KM activities within and across KM episodesEstablishing incentives for appropriate KM behaviors

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Rewarding knowledge sharing

Massey et al. (2002) Arranging process activities in timeIdentifying the requisite skills and knowledge necessary to carry out activitiesUsing external best practices, internal cross-functional expertise, and conductinga pilot study to show validity and sell the utility of a processConsciously promoting and testing, while not ‘overselling’ potential benefits,to build and maintain support for the project

Mullich (2001) Making sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KM

O’Dell (2000) Making the concepts of KM realCommunicating lessons learned in the pilotAligning rewards and performance evaluation

O’Dell et al. (2003) Developing common process vocabularyMotivating employees to perform KM activities

Smith and McKeen (2003a) Acknowledging or reward joining a knowledge community

Wiig and Jooste (2003) Fostering motivation by inspiring employees to act effectively

Table 8 Sample groupings of knowledge coordination candidates

Knowledge coordination group Knowledge coordination consolidated activities

Structuring efforts Determining appropriate communication channels for knowledge flowsConfiguring knowledge management episodesAssigning appropriate processors to KM activities within and across KM episodesDeveloping common process vocabularyProviding access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themProviding the right information in a context that aids decision making

Securing efforts Making the concepts of KM realAligning rewards and performance evaluationMaking sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KMDemonstrating the individual and group value of shared knowledgeMotivating employees to perform KM activitiesValuing individual learning by rewarding it and leveraging it to the enterprise levelAcknowledging or rewarding joining a knowledge communityFoster motivation by inspiring employees to act effectivelyConsciously promoting and testing, while being mindful not to ‘oversell’ potentialbenefits, to build and maintain support for the project



group value of shared knowledge, spotlightingteam players, and acknowledging or rewardingjoining a knowledge community are examples ofthis type of activity. ‘Securing sponsorship’ is con-cerned with ensuring that top management isaware of and supports KM efforts within the orga-nization. Activities such as making sure uppermanagement understands and is ready to promoteKM and obtaining management buy-in are exam-ples of this type of activity.

Knowledge leadership

Recall from Table 2 that knowledge leadership refersto establishing conditions that enable and facilitatefruitful conduct of KM. The distinguishing charac-teristic of leadership is that of being a catalystthrough such traits as inspiring, mentoring, settingexamples, engendering trust and respect, instillinga cohesive and creative culture, establishing avision, listening, learning, teaching, and knowledgesharing. Table 9 lists a sampling of specific types ofknowledge leadership identified by the end of theclassification phase. The consolidation phase theneliminated overlaps and redundancies in the table.For the full list of knowledge leadership activitiesgathered from the literature see Table D1 in Appen-dix D.

Analyzing the consolidation results, we find thatthey can be categorized into two main groups:planning and executing. Table 10 shows the sample

groupings of the consolidated activities (see TableD2 in Appendix D for the full list). For example,activities such as establishing intellectual propertyfiling and renewal guidelines, developing a KMaction plan, identifying areas relevant within thecontext of the case, and developing intellectualasset tactics and strategy to support the businessstrategy are all activities performed before theactual KM implementation is begun. On the otherhand, activities such as making knowledge sharinga guiding principle for the organization, activelysharing a manager’s knowledge, and empoweringpeople to create and add to the KM system are alla part of executing the KM initiative.

Further analysis of these two main groups dur-ing the construction phase led to refinements inthe knowledge leadership typology as shown inFigure 5. Three distinct types are within the plan-ning group. They are analyzing the business case,aligning KM with business strategies, and estab-lishing KM guidelines. ‘Analyzing the businesscase’ deals with understanding the current stateof the organization and where it is concerningKM. Activities such as identifying knowledgeareas relevant within the context of the case andunderstanding the current state and potentialfor improvement are examples of this type of activ-ity. ‘Aligning KM with business strategies’ is con-cerned with ensuring that the KM strategycomplements and supports the organization’sbusiness strategy. This includes activities such as

Figure 4 Distinct knowledge coordination types



contributing to the bottom line/mission goals,developing intellectual asset tactics and strategyto support the business strategy, and focusing theKM vision and practice to support and align withthe enterprise strategy and direction. Once thebusiness case has been analyzed and the KM strat-egy has been aligned with the business strategy,KM guidelines can be established. This includesactivities such as establishing intellectual propertyfiling and renewal guidelines, developing formalknowledge transfer processes, and establishingstandards for technology. There are also three dis-tinct types located within the executing group.These types are creating a KM culture, delegating

activities, and sharing a leader’s knowledge.‘Creating a KM culture’ deals with ensuring theorganization’s environment makes the employeesfeel that it is okay to follow the KM practices.This includes activities such as bringing expertsand people with similar interests together, promot-ing an integrative management culture by fosteringa knowledge-supportive culture, and allaying peo-ple’s fears about losing their competitive edge bysharing, rather than hoarding, what they know.‘Delegating activities’ deals with dividing theknowledge work among management and employ-ees. Activities such as appointing a champion orsponsor who understands the need and has the

Table 9 Sample knowledge leadership activities

Citation Knowledge leadership activity

Amidon and Macnamara (2003) Valuing the communication process

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Using information and knowledge to align organizational actions with missionsand visionsIncreasing collaboration opportunitiesFacilitating and accelerating learning

Chiem (2001) Making knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organization

Davis and Harrison (2001) Creating screening criteriaEstablishing intellectual property filing and renewal guidelines

Delio (1998) Rewriting the unwritten rules

Dorfman (2001) Developing a mission statement, strategic plan or project charter to establishgoals of KM

Department of Navy (2001) Actively sharing manager’s knowledge

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Making knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organization

Massey et al. (2002) Obtaining leadership to ensure that any KM strategy is aligned with businessstrategyFacilitating the incremental process of knowledge creation

Mullich (2001) Appointing a champion or sponsor who understands the need and has the cloutand resources to devote to supporting KM

O’Dell et al. (2003) Understanding the current state and potential for improvementExamining the organizational structure that supports your KM effortsCentralizing goals and focus so everyone uses the sameEmpowering people to create and add to the KM system‘Walking the talk’

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Creating a culture conducive to internal benchmarking

Oriel (2001) Developing intellectual asset tactics and strategy to support business strategyFacilitating implementation of intellectual asset strategy

Searle (2002) Bringing together knowledge, experts and conversations

Smith and McKeen (2003a) Leveraging what is known to grow and build the businessRemoving hurdles and disincentives

van der Spek et al. (2003) Identifying knowledge areas relevant within the context of the caseDeveloping KM action plan

Wiig and Jooste (2003) Focusing the KM vision and practice to support and align with enterprisestrategy and directionSponsoring, supporting, and nurturing collaborative knowledge networksProviding opportunities by placing employees in situations where theycan use their knowledge



clout and resources to devote to supporting KMand empowering people to create and add to theKM system are examples of this type of activity.‘Sharing a leader’s knowledge’ is concerned withensuring that managers not only encourage KM,but also show that they actively support and parti-cipate in knowledge sharing. Activities such asdemonstrating a personal commitment to KM and

actively sharing a manager’s knowledge are exam-ples of this type of activity.

CONCLUSIONS

A model that identifies value-adding KM activitiesis key to more fully exploiting the competitive

Table 10 Sample groupings of knowledge leadership candidates

Knowledge leadership group Knowledge leadership consolidated activities

Planning Creating screening criteriaEstablishing intellectual property filing and renewal guidelinesDeveloping a KM action planFacilitating implementation of intellectual asset strategyDeveloping a mission statement, strategic plan, or project charter to establish goals of KMUnderstanding the current state and potential for improvementIdentifying knowledge areas relevant within the context of the caseLeveraging what is known to grow and build the businessUsing information and knowledge to align organizational actions with missionsand visionsDeveloping intellectual asset tactics and strategy to support business strategyFocusing the KM vision and practice to support and align with enterprise strategyand direction

Executing Creating a culture conducive to internal benchmarkingProviding opportunities by placing employees in situations where theycan use their knowledgeRemoving hurdles and disincentivesIncreasing collaboration opportunitiesFacilitating and accelerating learningMaking knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organizationRewriting the unwritten rulesActively sharing manager’s knowledgeValuing the communication processEmpowering people to create and add to the KM systemAppointing a champion or sponsor who understands the need and has the cloutand resources to devote to supporting KMFacilitating the incremental process of knowledge creation

Figure 5 Distinct types of knowledge leadership activities



potential of KM. The model could be used by prac-titioners to structure their consideration and eva-luation of KM initiatives in their organizations.Researchers could use the model as a means tostructuring their exploration of connectionsbetween KM and competitiveness. Educators coulduse the model to structure coverage of KM activ-ities and impacts. The absence of such a model inthe literature and the above motivations led to thecreation of the KCM and to this paper’s explorationof its secondary activities.

This paper contributes to a better understandingof the KCM. The original KCM is comprised of ninebroad KM activity classes that organizations canfocus on in assessing their current status and indevising their competitive strategies. This paperdevelops the model’s four secondary activityclasses in greater detail. Together with the compa-nion paper (Holsapple and Jones, 2004) which didthe same for primary KM activities, we now have afull characterization of version 2 of the KCM. Thispaper also contributes to a fuller understanding ofthe underlying KM ontology by adding a newlevel of detail to the managerial influences that itidentifies.

Exploration of the secondary activities employeda methodology of collecting candidate KM activ-ities found in the literature, classifying them intothe appropriate activity classes, consolidation with-in each class, and using the remainder in construc-tion of typologies for the KM classes. The result is asystematic and more detailed model of KM activ-ities for guiding the efforts of researchers, practi-tioners, and educators. Rather than nine broadKM activity classes, there are now 61 KM activitiesthat can be used for focal points for assessing anorganization’s current practices, for designingnew KM initiatives (e.g., involving new methodol-ogies, technologies, people), and for monitoringtheir implementations.

As with the companion paper concerning the pri-mary activity classes, a limitation of the researchreported here is that construction of the typologieswas done via interpretive analysis. Other research-ers using the same methodology might determineother ways to further develop the KCM. A secondlimitation is that even though over 70 publicationswere reviewed, it is still possible that some KMactivities were not identified. These limitationsindicate a need to empirically study the resultsreported in both this and the companion papers.Such study can help to determine if any activitieswere categorized incorrectly or completely missed.Empirical analysis can also be used to determine inwhat way each activity type contributes to an orga-nization’s competitiveness. The extent and way in

which technological support is important to theperformance of the specific activities in the knowl-edge chain can also be investigated via empiricalresearch.

A more in-depth study could be undertaken todiscover the specific methods and technologiesthat have been used for each of the activities. Forthose positive cases, in-depth questions regardingthe obstacles and/or enablers, performance andoutcome, and other overall questions can be askedof the participants. The answers to these questionscan help to identify any situational factors that mayhave helped or hindered the implementation ofmethods devised for each activity. This can inturn provide suggestions to practitioners withrespect to their own KM initiatives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research has been supported in part by agrant from the Kentucky Science and EngineeringFoundation.

REFERENCES

Allard S. 2003. Knowledge creation. In Handbook onKnowledge Management: Knowledge Matters, Vol. 1,Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin; 367–380.

Almashari M, Zairi M, Alathari A. 2002. An empiricalstudy of the impact of knowledge management onorganizational performance. Journal of Computer Infor-mation Systems 42(5): 74–82.

Amidon DM, Macnamara D. 2003. The 7 C’s of knowl-edge leadership: innovating our future. In Handbookon Knowledge Management: Knowledge Matters, Vol. 1,Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin; 539–552.

Bennet A, Neilson R. 2003. The leaders of knowledgeinitiatives: qualifications, roles and responsibilities. InHandbook on Knowledge Management: KnowledgeMatters, Vol. 1, Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin;523–538.

Bloodgood JM, Salisbury WD. 2001. Understanding theinfluence of organizational change strategies on infor-mation technology and knowledge management stra-tegies. Decision Support Systems 31(1): 55–69.

Borgatti SP, Cross R. 2003. A relational view of informa-tion seeking and learning in social networks. Manage-ment Science 49(4): 432–445.

Bort J. 2001. Sharing needs a foundation. Knowledge Man-agement 4(2): 42–47.

Bose R. 2002. Knowledge management capabilities andinfrastructure for e-commerce. Journal of ComputerInformation Systems 42(5): 40–49.

Chiem PX. 2001. Trust matters. Knowledge Management4(5): 50–55.

Conway S. 2003. Valuing knowledge management beha-viors: linking KM behaviors to strategic performancemeasures. In Handbook on Knowledge Management:Knowledge Matters, Vol. 1, Holsapple CW (ed.).Springer: Berlin; 461–476.



Davis JL, Harrison SS. 2001. How leading companies rea-lize value from their intellectual assets. http://www.kslaw.com/Edison/ [August 2002].

Delio M. 1998. Keys to collaboration: 7 bottom-line stra-tegies to promote knowledge sharing. Knowledge Man-agement 1(1): 33–38.

Department of Navy. 2001. Knowledge centric organiza-tion (KCO) assessment. http://www.fgipc.org/02_Federal_CIO_Council/Downloads/90_KCOSurvey.doc[June 2002].

Dorfman P. 2001. The accidental knowledge manager.Knowledge Management 4(2): 36–41.

Eisenhart M. 2001. Washington’s need to know. Knowl-edge Management 4(1): 36.

Gill PJ. 2001. Once upon an enterprise. Knowledge Man-agement 4(5): 24.

Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. 2001. Knowledgemanagement: an organizational capabilities perspec-tive. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1):185–214.

Grover V, Davenport TH. 2001. General perspectiveson knowledge management: fostering a researchagenda. Journal of Management Information Systems18(1): 5–21.

Hanley S, Malafsky G. 2003. A guide for measuring thevalue of KM investments. In Handbook on KnowledgeManagement: Knowledge Directions, Vol. 2, HolsappleCW (ed.). Springer: Berlin; 369–390.

Holsapple CW, Jones KG. 2003. Toward an elaboration ofthe knowledge chain model. Americas Conference onInformation Systems, Tampa, FL.

Holsapple CW, Jones KG. 2004. Exploring primary activ-ities of the knowledge chain. Knowledge and ProcessManagement 11(3): 155–174.

Holsapple CW, Joshi KD. 2002. Knowledge manipulationactivities: results of a Delphi study. Information andManagement 39(6): 477–490.

Holsapple CW, Joshi KD. 2004. A formal knowledgemanagement ontology: conduct, activities, resources,and influences. Journal of the American Society for Infor-mation Science and Technology 55(7): 593–612.

Holsapple CW, Singh M. 2000. The knowledge chain. InProceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southern Asso-ciation on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA.

Holsapple CW, Singh M. 2001. The knowledge chainmodel: activities for competitiveness. Expert Systemswith Applications 20(1): 77–98.

Jamieson R, Handzic M. 2003. A framework for security,control and assurance of knowledge management sys-tems. In Handbook on Knowledge Management: KnowledgeMatters, Vol. 1, Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin;477–506.

Joshi KD. 1998. An Investigation of knowledge manage-ment characteristics: synthesis, Delphi study, analysis.PhD dissertation, Carol M. Gatton College of Businessand Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Kitts B, Edvinsson L, Beding T. 2001. Intellectual capital:from intangible assets to fitness landscapes. Expert Sys-tems with Applications 20(1): 35–50.

Lai H, Chu T-H. 2002. Knowledge management: a reviewof industrial cases. Journal of Computer Information Sys-tems 42(5): 26–39.

Lapre MA, Van Wassenhove LN. 2001. Creatingand transferring knowledge for productivity improve-ment in factories. Management Science 47(10):1311–1325.

Liebowitz J. 2002. Facilitating innovation through knowl-edge sharing: a look at the US Naval Surface WarfareCenter—Carderock division. Journal of Computer Infor-mation Systems 42(5): 1–6.

Liebowitz J, Chen Y. 2003. Knowledge sharing proficien-cies. In Handbook on Knowledge Management: KnowledgeMatters, Vol. 1, Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin;409–424.

Markus ML. 2001. Toward a theory of knowledge reuse:types of knowledge reuse situations and factors inreuse success. Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 18(1): 57–93.

Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM, O’Driscoll TM. 2002.Knowledge management in pursuit of performance:insights from Nortel Networks. MIS Quarterly 26(3):269–289.

Mullich J. 2001. Growing a knowledge management sys-tem. Knowledge Management 3(3): 54.

O’Dell C. 2000. Stages of Implementation: A Guide forYour Journey to Knowledge Management Best Practices.American Productivity & Quality Center: Houston, TX.

O’Dell C, Grayson CJ. 2003. Identifying and transferringinternal best practices. In Handbook on Knowledge Man-agement: Knowledge Matters, Vol. 1, Holsapple CW (ed.).Springer: Berlin; 601–622.

O’Dell C, Elliott S, Hubert C. 2000. KnowledgeManagement: A guide for your Journey to Best-PracticeProcesses. American Productivity & Quality Center:Houston, TX.

O’Dell C, Elliott S, Hubert C. 2003. Achieving knowledgemanagement outcomes. In Handbook on KnowledgeManagement: Knowledge Directions, Vol. 2, HolsappleCW (ed.). Springer: Berlin; 253–288.

Oriel SL. 2001. Working the value hierarchy using theDow Intellectual Capital model. http://www.kslaw.com/Edison/ [August 2002].

Porter M. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Free Press: NewYork.

Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J,McCraw D, Newman B, Rebeck K, the KnowledgeManagement Methodology Team. 2001. A systemsthinking framework for knowledge management. Deci-sion Support Systems 31(1): 5–16.

Searle G. 2002. Knowledge management is dead! TomoyeCorporation Webinar, 23 July 2002.

Shaw MJ, Subramaniam C, Tan GW, Welge ME. 2001.Knowledge management and data mining for market-ing. Decision Support Systems 31(1): 127–137.

Simon R, Gilgoff D. 2003. Unsettled times. www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030616/misc/16times.htm[21 June 2003].

Sine WD, Shane S, Gregorio DD. 2003. The halo effect andtechnology licensing: the influence of institutionalprestige on the licensing of university inventions. Man-agement Science 49(4): 478–496.

Singh M. 2000. Toward a knowledge management viewof electronic business: introduction and investigationof the knowledge chain model for competitive advan-tage. PhD dissertation, Carol M. Gatton Collegeof Business and Economics, University of Kentucky,Lexington.

Smith HA, McKeen JD. 2003a. Knowledge managementin organizations: the state of current practice. In Hand-book on Knowledge Management: Knowledge Directions,Vol. 2, Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin;395–410.



Smith HA, McKeen JD. 2003b. Valuing theknowledge management function. In Handbookon Knowledge Management: Knowledge Directions,Vol. 2, Holsapple CW (ed.). Springer: Berlin;353–368.

Stevens L. 2000. Knowing what your company knows.Knowledge Management 3(12): 38.

Thomas-Hunt MC, Ogden TY, Neale MA. 2003. Who’sreally sharing? Effects of social and expert status onknowledge exchange within groups. ManagementScience 49(4): 464–477.

van der Spek R, Hofer-Alfeis J, Kingma J. 2003. Theknowledge strategy process. In Handbook on KnowledgeManagement: Knowledge Directions, Vol. 2, HolsappleCW (ed.). Springer: Berlin; 443–466.

Weber RA, Camerer CF. 2003. Cultural conflict and mer-ger failure: an experimental approach. ManagementScience 49(4): 400–415.

Wiig KM, Jooste A. 2003. Exploiting knowledge for pro-ductivity gains. In Handbook on Knowledge Management:Knowledge Direction, Vol. 2, Holsapple CW (ed.).Springer: Berlin; 289–308.



APPENDIX A: KNOWLEDGE MEASUREMENT

Table A1 Knowledge measurement activities


Almashari et al. (2002) Measuring the economic value of knowledge

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Establishing benchmark for internal and external performance—individualsand teams

Bloodgood and Salisbury (2001) Identifying where knowledge resides

Borgatti and Cross (2003) Knowing what another person knowsValuing what other people know in relation to one’s work

Bose (2002) Benchmarking both internal and external

Conway (2003) Measuring templates usedMeasuring code reuseMeasuring use of online expertMeasuring IP submission/reuseMeasuring seminars attendedMeasuring best practices used/submittedMeasuring amount of e-learning

Davis and Harrison (2001) Taking stock of what you own

Gold et al. (2001) Benchmarking

Hanley and Malafsky (2003) Including both qualitative and quantitative measuresDetermining which framework is bestDetermining what should be measuredUsing agency/organization documents in measuringUsing meetings involving the performing organization andstakeholders to obtain priorities and important stakeholder issuesUsing automated data collection systems for system measuresUsing system performance logs for system measuresUsing manual counts, estimates, or surveys for output and outcome measuresDetermining who stakeholders areDetermining what the stakeholders need to knowUsing interviews or workshops for getting opinions and group consensusMeasuring time, money, and personnel time saved by implementing KM initiativeMeasuring percentage of successful programs compared to those beforeKM implementationMeasuring the changes in resources costs used in business process over timeMeasuring the success and failure rate of programs linked to the KM assets over timeGauging the ‘smartness’ of the organization

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Reviewing employee KM performanceEvaluating knowledge manipulation skills inventoryAppraising intangible assetsEstimating intellectual capital ROIEvaluating coordination of knowledge processors and resources in the conduct of KMMeasuring the effects of individual knowledge manipulation activitiesor combined activities

Jamieson and Handzic (2003) Identifying the KM assets and their associated risks

Kitts et al. (2001) Using intellectual capital mapping

Lai and Chu (2002) Identifying what knowledge exists in the organization and who owns itReviewing the process, performance, and impact of KM and detect if newknowledge was created

Liebowitz (2002) Measuring number of links per respondentsMeasuring individuals with highest number of nominationsMeasuring reuse rate of ‘frequently accessed/reused’ knowledgeCapturing of key expertise in an online wayMeasuring dissemination of knowledge sharing to appropriate individualsMeasuring number of lessons learned and best practices appliedto create value-added

Continues



Table A1 Continued


Measuring number of ‘serious’ anecdotes presented about the valueof the organization’s knowledge management systemMeasuring the number of ‘apprentices’ that one mentor hasInteracting with academicians, consultants, and advisorsMeasuring frequency of advice seekingMeasuring ratio of internal to external linksMeasuring proportion of total contact that are inward and outwardMeasuring number of improvement suggestions madeMeasuring corporate directory coverageMeasuring number of presentation madeMeasuring customer relationshipsMeasuring human resources itemsMeasuring strategic alliancesMeasuring number of new colleagues-to-colleague relationships spawnedMeasuring number of knowledge-sharing proficiencies gainedMeasuring number of new ideas generating innovate products, services,or improved processesMeasuring innovation resultsMeasuring process improvementsMeasuring number of shared documents publishedMeasuring number of patents published

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Linking performance evaluations to how well a person contributesto generating, assessing, and transferring knowledgeUsing a knowledge-sharing effectiveness inventory

Markus (2001) Assessing knowledge reuse needs

Massey et al. (2002) Linking KM to financial results or bottom-line performanceMeasuring the impacts of KM with both hard financial data and softnon-financial implications

Mullich (2001) Establishing success metrics earlyLinking performance evaluations to how well a person contributesto generating, assessing, and transferring knowledge

O’Dell (2000) Developing anecdotal measuresDeveloping quantitative measuresBenchmarkingMonitoring the health of KM

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Using benchmarking teamsCreating and cataloguing the corporate memory of an organization’sexpertise and abilities

O’Dell et al. (2000) Knowing what knowledge the organization as a whole already has

O’Dell et al. (2003) Measuring the level of use (activities)Asking users how the tools have helped them achieve business objectives

Oriel (2001) Using established methods to measure the value of intellectual capital

Sine et al. (2003) Using reputation for past performance as a substitute for direct knowledgewhere it is difficult to ascertain quality

Smith and McKeen (2003b) Measuring continuouslyMeasuring what is statistically importantUsing conservative numbersUsing different measures for different stakeholdersCounting the number of submissions to the databaseCounting the number of times users sign on to the knowledge systemTracking what users do while they are in the systemTracking how many contributions are downloaded and how users ratethe contributionsInformally collecting favorable comments and solicit internal client feedbackConducting customer satisfaction surveys

Continues



Table A1 Continued


Creating a contribution template for users to track and record the valuethey have received from knowledge basesAsking internal clients how much they would pay for the value they receivefrom the KM groupCharging back the costs of servicesTracking the impact of KM on improving such things as time to market,innovation, learning agility, client satisfaction, and consistency on a particular processLinking KM to specific processes to uncover direct performance impacts more easily

Stevens (2000) Performing a knowledge audit

Thomas-Hunt et al. (2003) Capitalizing on member resources by accurately discerning, weighting,and incorporating task-relevant knowledge of members

van der Spek et al. (2003) Identifying most important key performance indicators (KPI)Assessing knowledge areas in terms of proficiency, codification, and diffusionAnalyzing the knowledge areas in terms of current and future impact on KPI

Table A2 Knowledge measurement groupings

Knowledge measurement group Knowledge measurement consolidated activities

Determining/developing measures Developing anecdotal measuresDeveloping quantitative measuresBenchmarkingDetermining which framework is bestDetermining what should be measuredUsing agency/organization documents in measuringUsing meetings involving the performing organizationand stakeholders to obtain priorities and important stakeholder issuesEstablishing success metrics earlyIdentifying most important key performance indicators (KPI)Using different measures for different stakeholders

Applying measures Creating and cataloguing the corporate memory of an organization’sexpertise and abilitiesPerforming a knowledge auditReviewing employee KM performanceEvaluating knowledge manipulation skills inventoryLinking performance evaluations to how well a person contributesto generating, assessing, and transferring knowledgeAssessing knowledge areas in terms of proficiency, codification, and diffusionMeasuring templates usedMeasuring code reuseMeasuring use of online expertIdentifying the KM assets and their associated risksMeasuring number of links per respondentsMeasuring individuals with highest number of nominationsUsing intellectual capital mappingMeasuring IP submission/reuseMeasuring seminars attendedMeasuring best practices used/submittedMeasuring amount of e-learningUsing automated data collection systems for system measuresUsing system performance logs for system measuresUsing manual counts, estimates, or surveys for output and outcome measuresCounting the number of submissions to the databaseCounting the number of times users sign on to the knowledge systemTracking what users do while they are in the system

Continues



Table A2 Continued

Knowledge measurement group Knowledge measurement consolidated activities

Tracking how many contributions are downloaded and how usersrate the contributionsMeasuring the number of ‘apprentices’ that one mentor hasMeasuring proportion of total contacts that are inward and outwardDetermining who stakeholders areDetermining what the stakeholders need to knowUsing interviews or workshops for getting opinions and group consensusConducting customer satisfaction surveysUsing reputation for past performance as a substitute for directknowledge where it is difficult to ascertain qualityCreating a contribution template for users to track and record the valuethey have received from knowledge basesAsking internal clients how much they would pay for the valuethey receive from the KM groupCharging back the costs of servicesAppraising intangible assetsMeasuring the impacts of KM using both hard financial dataand soft non-financial implicationsEstimating intellectual capital ROIEvaluating coordination of knowledge processors and resourcesin the conduct of KMUsing established methods to measure the value of intellectual capitalMonitoring the health of KMMeasuring the effects of individual knowledge manipulationactivities or combined activitiesTracking the impact of KM on improving such things as time to market,innovation, learning agility, client satisfaction, and consistencyon a particular processLinking KM to specific processes to uncover direct performanceimpacts more easilyUsing a knowledge-sharing effectiveness inventoryAsking users how the tools have helped them achieve business objectivesAnalyzing the knowledge areas in terms of current and future impact on KPIMeasuring time, money, and personnel time saved by implementingKM initiativeMeasuring percentage of successful programs compared to thosebefore KM implementationMeasuring the changes in resources costs used in business process over timeMeasuring the success and failure rate of programs linked to the KMassets over time



APPENDIX B: KNOWLEDGE CONTROL

Table B1 Knowledge control activities


Almashari et al. (2002) Managing the economic value of knowledge

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Reducing costs, risks, learning curves, and start-up time

Bloodgood and Salisbury (2001) Protecting knowledgeLimiting the number of employees who have access to certain informationMaking sure no single employee has access to the majority of informationsurrounding a new productMaintaining causal ambiguity surrounding the firm’s abilityto successfully compete

Davis and Harrison (2001) Pruning intellectual property portfolio regularlyEnforcing your intellectual propertyMaintaining intellectual property

Delio (1998) Providing open access to collected information

Department of Navy (2001) Allocating resources to support knowledge-sharing programs

Gold et al. (2001) Protecting knowledge within an organization from illegal or inappropriateuse or theft

Grover and Davenport (2001) Editing and pruning knowledge objects in a repository

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Ensuring sufficiency of knowledge resources and processorsEnsuring quality of knowledge resources and processorsDeveloping technological protection of organizational knowledgeEnsuring legal protection of knowledgeEstablishing or enforcing controls on the performance of knowledgemanipulation activitiesImproving defect analysis and customer service

Jamieson and Handzic (2003) Identifying the KM assets and their associated risksIdentifying existing controls and security measures over the assetsDetermining the likelihood, consequence, and level of risk associatedwith assetsValuating and prioritizing risksDeveloping action plan to implement additional security and control measures

Lai and Chu (2002) Determining if knowledge is out of date

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Making knowledge available to all employees except where there is ademonstrated need for confidentiality or protection of privacy

Markus (2001) Culling, cleaning, and polishing, structuring, formatting, or indexingdocuments against a classification schemeFiltering and pruning content

Massey et al. (2002) Integrating a range of skills and expertise on the project teamDrawing from a range of skills, independent from functional influencethat may serve to upset the balanceEnsuring sufficient resources

O’Dell (2000) Embedding the costs in other activities to which the organizationis already committedFinding resources for pilotRealigning the organization’s structure and budgetManaging growth and control chaosMonitoring the health of KM

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Using internal audits

O’Dell et al. (2000) Assigning people specifically to knowledge management activities

O’Dell et al. (2003) Providing adequate knowledge for the technology involved

Oriel (2001) Managing the cost of intellectual capital

Continues



Table B2 Knowledge control groupings

Knowledge control group Knowledge control consolidated activities

KM resource control Embedding the costs in other activities to which the organizationis already committedFinding resources for pilotRealigning the organization’s structure and budgetReducing costs, risks, learning curves, and start-up timeManaging the cost of intellectual capitalAllocating resources to support knowledge-sharing programsUsing internal auditsAssigning people specifically to knowledge management activitiesProviding adequate knowledge for the technology involvedIdentifying what the company needs to knowEnsuring quality of knowledge resources and processorsPruning the intellectual property portfolio regularlyManaging the economic value of knowledge

Governance Developing technological protection of organizational knowledgeEnsuring legal protection of knowledgeEstablishing or enforcing controls on the performance of knowledgemanipulation activitiesImproving defect analysis and customer serviceMaking knowledge available to all employees except where thereis a demonstrated need for confidentiality or protection of privacyIdentifying existing controls and security measures over the assetsDetermining the likelihood, consequence, and level of risk associated with assetsDeveloping action plan to implement additional security and control measuresManaging growth and control chaosMaking sure no single employee has access to the majority of informationsurrounding a new productMaintaining casual ambiguity surrounding the firm’s ability to successfully compete

Table B1 Continued


Searle (2002) Controlling quality by giving editors simple tools to scan new suggestionsfor accuracy and relevance, and to then approve them for publication

Shaw et al. (2001) Refining and refreshing knowledge

Smith and McKeen (2003a) Identifying what the company needs to know

Smith and McKeen (2003b) Charging back the costs of services

Van der Spek et al. (2003) Analyzing the knowledge areas in terms of current and future impact on KPI



APPENDIX C: KNOWLEDGE COORDINATION

Table C1 Knowledge coordination activities


Allard (2003) Discouraging knowledge hoarding and reward knowledge creation

Amidon and Macnamara (2003) Evolving a common language

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Providing access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themProviding platform for knowledge reuse and innovationProviding the right information in a context that aids decision makingIntegrating new knowledge into decision processes by sharingand collaborating with players and stakeholders in decision processesProviding an infrastructure for electronic and social networkingto develop new products and servicesValuing individual learning by rewarding it and leveraging it to the enterprise levelFostering rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on them

Bort (2001) Providing the appropriate network infrastructure

Bose (2002) Defining, storing, categorizing, indexing, and linking digital objectsDevising a classification system

Chiem (2001) Rewarding knowledge sharing

Davis and Harrison (2001) Organizing to extract valueObtaining management buy-in

Delio (1998) Ensuring access to needed technologyMaking sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KMDemonstrating the individual and group value of shared knowledgeSpotlighting team playersOffering tangible incentives for sharing

Department of Navy (2001) Making personal and organizational benefits of KM programs clear

Dorfman (2001) Obtaining management buy-in

Eisenhart (2001) Providing appropriate technological architecture for KM

Gill (2001) Including storytelling

Gold et al. (2001) Developing a framework for organizing and structuring knowledge

Grover and Davenport (2001) Building and maintaining technology-based knowledge applicationsRedesigning knowledge work processes and incorporate knowledge tasksand activities into themIncorporating motivational approaches, and evaluation and reward systemsinto human resources management process of the organization

Hanley and Malafsky (2003) Including storytelling

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Determining appropriate communication channels for knowledge flowsStructuring of the patterns of knowledge work within a KM activityConfiguring knowledge activities within a KM episodeConfiguring knowledge management episodesAssigning appropriate processors to KM activities within and across KM episodesSelecting qualified employees to participate in a product development teamEstablishing incentives for appropriate KM behaviors

Lai and Chu (2002) Setting up a common language and standard to easily integrate knowledgemanagement efforts among business unitsMaking members aware of the need for change before launching KM projectProviding some successful stories of leveraging knowledge in orderto motivate people

Lapre and Van Wassenhove (2001) Obtaining management buy-in

Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Rewarding knowledge sharing

Markus (2001) Developing classification schemesHelping organizations understand the need to adopt newly codifiedbest practices

Continues



Table C1 Continued


Massey et al. (2002) Arranging process activities in timeIdentifying the requisite skills and knowledge necessary to carry out activitiesUsing external best practices, internal cross-functional expertise, and conductinga pilot study to show validity and sell the utility of a processConsciously promoting and testing, while not ‘overselling’ potential benefits,to build and maintain support for the project

Mullich (2001) Obtaining management buy-inMaking sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KM

O’Dell (2000) Balancing a common framework with local controlIdentifying others to join the causeCommunicating the results of the pilotsMaking the concepts of KM realCommunicating lessons learned in the pilotCommunicating and marketing the expansion strategyAligning rewards and performance evaluation

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Using best practice teamsUsing successful best practices as examplesAllowing and rewarding employees for learning and sharingwith other departments

O’Dell et al. (2000) Assigning people specifically to knowledge management activitiesKnowing where in the organization to get knowledge neededUsing technology effectively to share knowledge within the organization

O’Dell et al. (2003) Having formal communication linesDeveloping common process vocabularyProviding teams and teaming approachesCapturing success stories and use them to ‘sell’ others on what you are doingAligning reward systemMotivating employees to perform KM activitiesMaking the whole organization aware of the benefits of sharing knowledgeEmphasizing tacit knowledge as well as explicit

Smith and McKeen (2003a) Motivating peopleAcknowledging or rewarding joining a knowledge community

Weber and Camerer (2003) Developing a hybrid language when a merger occurs

Wiig and Jooste (2003) Giving permission by providing employees with safe environments in whichto do their work and understand how far they can improvise enterpriseguidelines and policies to serve individual situations and customersCreating supportive infrastructure capabilities by including extensiveIT applications for communication, collaboration, information access,and automated reasoningFostering motivation by inspiring employees to act effectively

Table C2 Knowledge coordination groupings


Structuring efforts Determining appropriate communication channels for knowledge flowsStructuring of the patterns of knowledge work within a KM activityConfiguring knowledge activities within a KM episodeConfiguring knowledge management episodesAssigning appropriate processors to KM activities within and across KM episodesBalancing a common framework with local controlIdentifying others to join the cause

Continues



Table C2 Continued


Assigning people specifically to knowledge management activitiesKnowing where in the organization to get knowledge neededUsing technology effectively to share knowledge within the organizationDeveloping common process vocabularyProviding teams and teaming approachesOrganizing to extract valueUsing best practice teamsProviding access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themProviding platform for knowledge reuse and innovationProviding the right information in a context that aids decision makingIntegrating new knowledge into decision processes by sharingand collaborating with players and stakeholders in decision processesCreating supportive infrastructure capabilities by including extensive ITapplications for communication, collaboration, information access,and automated reasoning

Securing efforts Communicating the results of the pilotsMaking the concepts of KM realCommunicating and marketing the expansion strategyAligning rewards and performance evaluationUsing successful best practices as examplesAllowing and rewarding employees for learning and sharingwith other departmentsIncluding storytellingObtaining management buy-inMaking sure upper management understands and is ready to promote KMDemonstrating the individual and group value of shared knowledgeSpotlighting team playersMotivating employees to perform KM activitiesEmphasizing tacit knowledge as well as explicitValuing individual learning by rewarding it and leveraging it to the enterprise levelFostering rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themDiscouraging knowledge hoarding and reward knowledge creationAcknowledging or rewarding joining a knowledge communityFostering motivation by inspiring employees to act effectivelyConsciously promoting and testing, while being mindful not to ‘oversell’potential benefits, to build and maintain support for the project



APPENDIX D: KNOWLEDGE LEADERSHIP

Table D1 Knowledge leadership activities


Almashari et al. (2002) Fostering an appreciation for knowledge and a culture of sharing

Amidon and Macnamara (2003) Understand the nature of the complex context—how to make sense of it and howto convey it to othersNot avoiding the issue of results on investment in building leadership capabilityValuing heritage and know that more than 2% of manager time needsto be dedicated to visioningCoaching and being coached by people of similar values and visionEmbracing innovative mechanisms, tools, and methodologies to navigateinto the futureKnowing that there is more power in the dialogue than what gets documentedin a particular planning processValuing the communication processKnowing that competencies are based in experience and that they are moredynamic than static attributesNot avoiding the issues of measurementKnowing the relationship between the motivation of an individualand the culture of the organizationUnderstanding the value of the collective (teams, etc.)

Bennet and Neilson (2003) Using information and knowledge to align organizational actions with missionsand visionsFocusing on knowledge of customer needs to drive the organizations effortsMaking people our primary asset is crucial to maintaining organizationalexpertiseFocusing strategic thinking on capitalizing on knowledge vs. focusing on the budgetContributing to bottom-line/mission goalsAcclimating new employees to ‘the way we do things around here’Increasing collaboration opportunitiesLinking people who have the requisite tacit and explicit knowledge with thosewho need it to do their jobsFacilitating and accelerating learningFostering and providing access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalizeon them

Chiem (2001) Making knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organization

Davis and Harrison (2001) Relating intellectual property to business useCreating screening criteriaEstablishing intellectual property filing and renewal guidelines

Delio (1998) Rewriting the unwritten rules

Department of Navy (2001) Actively sharing manager’s knowledgeDemonstrating a personal commitment to KM

Dorfman (2001) Developing a mission statement, strategic plan, or project charter to establishgoals of KM

Eisenhart (2001) Creating a culture that supports the sharing of tacit knowledge

Gold et al. (2001) Shaping culture is central to a firm’s ability to manage knowledge

Grover and Davenport (2001) Knowing that management of knowledge is best accomplishedby becoming embedded in other aspects of businessMaking KM so pervasive and common that it seems invisibleFacilitating knowledge-sharing networks and communities of practice

Holsapple and Singh (2001) Finding, understanding, and reusing best practices

Lai and Chu (2002) Creating knowledge management strategiesCreating a climate for changeCreating an environment to facilitate or direct knowledge management activities

Continues



Table D1 Continued


Liebowitz and Chen (2003) Sharing our knowledge to support collaboration with other federalgovernment departments, other levels of government, and our other partnersEstablishing processes and tools to enable us to capture and share ourknowledge in order to support collaborationMaking knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organization

Markus (2001) Facilitating the development of internal or external communities

Massey et al. (2002) Obtaining leadership to ensure that any KM strategy is alignedwith business strategyFacilitating the incremental process of knowledge creation

Mullich (2001) Appointing a champion or sponsor who understands the need and hasthe clout and resources to devote to supporting KM

O’Dell and Grayson (2003) Creating a culture conducive to internal benchmarkingBringing experts and people with similar interests togetherSharing more and sharing faster

O’Dell (2000) Embedding KM in the business model

O’Dell et al. (2003) Understanding the current state and potential for improvementExamining the organizational structure that supports your KM effortsCentralizing goals and focus so everyone uses the sameBuilding flexibility into the focus strategyMatching focus of KM with the correct KM approachIncluding senior leaders and/or key stakeholders in the focus selectionReviewing your organization’s competitive, or business, strategyMaking realistic choices (choose projects that leadership is committed to improving)Matching the KM system with your KM objectivesEstablishing knowledge and learning ownershipDeveloping formal knowledge transfer processDeveloping a KM frameworkEstablishing standards for technologyMaintaining a pragmatic rather than perfectionist approachCreating a structure of classifying knowledgeSetting up your infrastructure so that someone has primary responsibilityfor making KM and sharing happenEmpowering people to create and add to the KM systemAppointing a champion or sponsor who understands the need and has theclout and resources to devote to supporting KM‘Walking the talk’Creating an environment that encourages sharingHeavily marketing your knowledge-sharing applications and ensure theyare meeting users’ daily needsEmphasizing tacit knowledge as well as explicitLocating any communities of practice or sharing networks that alreadyexist in your organizationGetting people to meet face-to-face at the beginningAllaying people’s fears about losing their competitive edge by sharing,rather than hoarding, what they know

Oriel (2001) Showing the value of intellectual capitalDeveloping intellectual asset tactics and strategy to support business strategyFacilitating implementation of intellectual asset strategy

Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001) Integrating KM within the strategic goals of the organization

Searle (2002) Delegating 100% of website/community management to non-technicalsubject matter expertsBringing together knowledge, experts, and conversationsCreating closed discussions and topics for working groups, teams, committeesEmpowering ordinary users to suggest new knowledge using simple fill-in formsFacilitating lurking

Continues



Table D1 Continued


Smith and McKeen (2003a) Leveraging what is known to grow and build the businessConsidering knowledge retention standardsUsing knowledge to make decisions and benefit customersWorking interactivity on KM architecture, infrastructure, and cultureRemoving hurdles and disincentives

van der Spek et al. (2003) Specifying the business case (characteristics, boundaries, environment)Identifying knowledge areas relevant within the context of the caseDeveloping KM action plan

Wiig and Jooste (2003) Focusing the KM vision and practice to support and align with enterprisestrategy and directionPracticing accelerated learning by pursuing a broad range of knowledgetransfer activitiesPromoting an integrative management culture by fosteringa knowledge-supportive cultureProviding a shared understanding of enterprise mission, current direction, andindividual roles to support the enterprise and individuals’ own interestSponsoring, supporting, and nurturing collaborative knowledge networksProviding opportunities by placing employees in situations where theycan use their knowledgePracticing critical thinking and innovation, through motivation and education

Table D2 Knowledge leadership groupings


Planning Finding, understanding, and reusing best practicesCreating screening criteriaEstablishing intellectual property filing and renewal guidelinesEstablishing knowledge and learning ownershipDeveloping formal knowledge transfer processEstablishing standards for technologyMaintaining a pragmatic rather than perfectionist approachDeveloping KM action planFacilitating implementation of intellectual asset strategyCoaching and being coached by people of similar values and visionEmbracing innovative mechanisms, tools, and methodologies to navigate into the futureDeveloping a mission statement, strategic plan, or project charter to establish goals of KMUnderstanding the current state and potential for improvementIdentifying knowledge areas relevant within the context of the caseLeveraging what is known to grow and build the businessConsidering knowledge retention standardsShowing the value of intellectual capitalUsing information and knowledge to align organizational actions with missionsand visionsFocusing on knowledge of customer needs to drive the organization’s effortsMaking people our primary asset is crucial to maintaining organizationalexpertiseFocusing strategic thinking on capitalizing on knowledge vs. focusing on the budgetContributing to bottom-line/mission goalsMaking KM so pervasive and common that it seems invisibleUsing knowledge to make decisions and benefit customersDeveloping intellectual asset tactics and strategy to support business strategyMatching focus of KM with the correct KM approachIncluding senior leaders and/or key stakeholders in the focus selectionReviewing your organization’s competitive, or business, strategy

Continues



Table D2 Continued


Making realistic choices (choose projects that leadership is committed to improving)Matching the KM system with your KM objectivesFocusing the KM vision and practice to support and align with enterprise strategyand directionEmbedding KM in the business modelNot avoiding the issue of results on investment in building leadership capability

Executing Creating a culture conducive to internal benchmarkingBringing experts and people with similar interests togetherPromoting an integrative management culture by fostering a knowledge-supportivecultureProviding a shared understanding of enterprise mission, current direction,and individual roles to support the enterprise and individuals’ own interestSponsoring, supporting, and nurturing collaborative knowledge networksProviding opportunities by placing employees in situations where they canuse their knowledgePracticing critical thinking and innovation, through motivation and educationWorking interactivity on KM architecture, infrastructure, and cultureRemoving hurdles and disincentivesEmphasizing tacit knowledge as well as explicitLocating any communities of practice or sharing networks that already existin your organizationGetting people to meet face-to-face at the beginningAllaying people’s fears about losing their competitive edge by sharing, ratherthan hoarding, what they knowCreating a culture that supports the sharing of tacit knowledgeIncreasing collaboration opportunitiesFacilitating the incremental process of knowledge creationLinking people who have the requisite tacit and explicit knowledge with those whoneed it to do their jobsFacilitating and accelerating learningFostering and provide access to rich pools of ideas so others can capitalize on themEmpowering ordinary users to suggest new knowledge using simple fill-in formsFacilitating lurkingEstablishing processes and tools to enable us to capture and shareour knowledge in order to support collaborationMaking knowledge sharing a guiding principle for the organizationRewriting the unwritten rulesActively sharing manager’s knowledgeDemonstrating a personal commitment to KMHeavily marketing your knowledge-sharing applications and ensure theyare meeting users’ daily needsPracticing accelerated learning by pursuing a broad range of knowledgetransfer activitiesKnowing that there is more power in the dialogue than what gets documentedin a particular planning processValuing the communication processSetting up your infrastructure so that someone has primary responsibilityfor making KM and sharing happenEmpowering people to create and add to the KM systemAppointing a champion or sponsor who understands the need and has theclout and resources to devote to supporting KMDelegating 100% of website/community management to non-technical subjectmatter experts



Documents

Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain