Methodology for the Implementation of Knowledge Management System

8/8/2019 Methodology for the Implementation of Knowledge Management System

1/14

Managing knowledge means managing the processesof creation, development, distribution and utilisation ofknowledge in orderto improveorganizationalperformanceand increase competitive capacity. However, serious dif-culties arise when attempts are made to implement knowl-edge management in enterprises. One of the reasonsbehind this situation is the lack of suitable methodologiesfor guiding the process of development and implementa-tion of a knowledgemanagement system(KMS),which is acomputer system that allows the processes of creating,collecting, organising, accessing and using knowledge tobe automated as far as possible. In this article we proposea methodology for directing theprocess of developing andimplementing a knowledge management system in anytype of organization. The methodology is organised inphases andoutlines the activities to be performed, the tec-hniques andsupporting tools to be used, andtheexpectedresults for each phase. In addition, we show how the pro-posedmethodologycanbe applied to theparticular case ofan enterprise.

Introduction

One of the novel ways for improving competitivenessand productivity in organizations is the implementation of knowledge management (KM), understood as meaning thecapacity to create, collect, organize, access and use knowl-edge. This situation has arisen because

company decisions and actions require a far greater amountof information and knowledge due to the more global andcomplex environments in which businesses currently haveto operate;

there is an increased demand for greater knowledge intensityin products, processes, and services. By applying knowledgeto products and services, their value increases;

KM stresses the importance of intangible assets and enablesthem to be used to advantage; and

information and communication technologies open up numer-ous possibilities to improve knowledge management bothwithin and among enterprises.

A key factor for achieving correct KM in an organizationis the development and implementation of a knowledgemanagement system (KMS), that is to say, a technologicalinformation system that supports KM and allows knowledgeto be created, codied, stored, and distributed within theorganization automatically (Day, 2001).

Running a KMS development and implementation project in an organization is an extremely complex process thatinvolves different technological, human, and organizationalaspects. To ensure the project is successfully implemented,while at the same time reducing the level of complexity, it isnecessary to follow a methodology that acts as a guidethroughout the analysis, development, and implementationof the KMS.

The methodologies that, at rst sight, appear to be themost appropriate for KMS development and implementationare the methodologies that are oriented towards informationsystems development because a KMS is a kind of informa-tion system.

Earlier studies have proposed various information sys-tems development methodologies (ISDM), which provide aconsistent set of procedures to be followed (as well as tools,techniques, and documentation that can be used) to make theprocess of managing and developing information systemsmore efcient and effective (Yadav, Shaw, Webb, & Sutcu,

2001). In addition, ISDM imply a time-dependent sequenceof action stages (Walters, Broady, & Hartley, 1994).A wide range of such frameworks have been developed

over the years. In this regard, in 1994, Jayaratna (1994) esti-mated that there were more than 1000 available for use. InAvison and Fitzgerald (2006) there is a good compilationand comparative analysis of the most important ones.

Each of these ISDM has its own acknowledged strengthsand weaknesses. However, one ISDM is not necessarily suit-able for use in all projects. Each methodology is best suitedto a specic type of project due to their different technical,

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 59(5):742755, 2008

Methodology for the Implementation of KnowledgeManagement Systems

Ricardo Chalmeta and Reyes GrangelGrupo de Investigacin en Integracin y Re-Ingeniera de Sistemas (IRIS), Universitat Jaume I.12071 Castell. Spain. E-mail: {rchalmet, grangel}@uji.es

Received August 1, 2006; revised September 10, 2007; acceptedSeptember 10, 2007

2008 ASIS&T Published online 31 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.20785


2/14

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYMarch 2008 743DOI: 10.1002/asi

organizational, project, and team considerations (Meso,Madey, Troutt, & Liegle, 2006).

From our experience in developing KMS in real-worldsituations and in accordance with other authors likeViswanathan, Yang, Whangbo, Kim, and Garner (2005),who highlight the common weaknesses found in KMSdevelopment methodologies in practice, we can state thatone of the chief reasons for the large number of failures in

implementing a KMS is the lack of an ISDM that is speci-cally oriented towards the development of a KMS thatreduces the complexity of the process. For example, whenthe currently existing ISDM are applied to the developmentof a KMS, at some stage it becomes necessary to specify therequirements the future KMS should meet. These ISDM donot, however, help users to identify them in a practical way.It would therefore be very useful for the users who have todene these requirements (which in this case is knowledge)to have a series of templates that include examples of typicalitems of knowledge that an organization like theirs will beinterested in managing. Thus, the process of specifying therequirements could be carried out more quickly and thor-oughly. Another example is that although existing methodolo-gies make use of modelling languages to create a model of the computer system, they do not employ specic languageswith proles that are expressly oriented towards modellingknowledge. Such proles would allow the knowledge mapto be generated in a simple manner that is at the same timeboth graphic and intuitive.

Consequently, there are a number of problems concerningthe methodologies for developing KMS that remain unsolved,and hence there is still room for signicant improvementregarding both their theoretical aspects and their practicalapplicability (McInerney & Day, 2002).

To help solve this problem, in this article, we propose amethodology that is structured in several different phases andcan be used to guide projects intended to develop and imple-ment knowledge management systems in an enterprise. Themethodology makes it possible to (a) gather, identify, andseparate knowledge from information; (b) store knowledgeusing a common language; and (c) make this knowl-edge widely available to whoever may need it. To collect dataand test the operative capacity of the methodology, our work was carried out in collaboration with a large textile company.

The article is organized as follows. The next sectionpresents a review of what knowledge, KM, and KMS are andhow they are related to the use and dissemination of knowl-

edge within an organization. In addition, the current situa-tion regarding the development and implementation of KMSis analysed in order to determine the main reasons whythey fail. The KM-IRIS Methodology section outlines themethodology proposed here for helping to develop andimplement a KMS in any type of organization. The method-ology is organized in phases and outlines the activities tobe performed, the techniques and the supporting tools to beused, and the expected results for each phase. The Adapta-tion of the General Methodology to the Particular Case of anEnterprise section shows an example of how this methodology

could be applied in an enterprise. Finally, the Case Examplesection presents a case example, and the Conclusions sectionoffers the conclusions from the work.

Literature Review

There is no universally accepted denition of exactlywhat knowledge is. Some authors dene it, for example, as

the information individuals possess in their minds (Drestke,1981). This denition is argued by saying that data (rawnumbers and facts) exist within an organization. After pro-cessing these data, they are converted into information, andonce it is actively possessed by an individual, this informa-tion in turn becomes knowledge. There are also otherapproaches to dening knowledge that are more independentof the information technologies. One of the most frequentlycited is the approach proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995), who dene knowledge as the justied belief thatincreases the capacity of an entity to take effective action.Following this line of reasoning, knowledge can be seenfrom ve different perspectives (Alavi & Leidner, 2001): (a)

as a state of mind, (b) as an object, (c) as a process, (d) as acondition for accessing information, or (e) as a capability.Taking this context and our own empirical observations asour starting point, we dene knowledge as the awarenessthat enables us to possess the skill or the capacity required ina particular situation (a) to deal with and resolve complexissues in an efcient and creative manner and (b) to takeadvantage of opportunities by making the most appropriatedecisions.

The process of converting the knowledge gained from thesources available to an organization and then connectingpeople with that knowledge is one of the denitions pro-vided to explain KM (Myers, 1996; OLeary, 1998; OLeary,Kuokka, & Plant, 1997). Therefore, the aim of KM is tocreate, collect, store, access, transfer, and reuse knowledge(Devedzic, 1999).

Knowledge management has been used in different kindsof organizations in order to boost prots, become competi-tively innovative, or simply survive (Abdullah, Benest,Evans, & Kimble, 2002). Different examples of its applica-tion are well described in a large number of articles. KMis used, for example, to create or assemble productiveresources, including research, manufacturing, design, business,learning, and training (Liao, 2003).

However, there are different problems that hamper KMsapplication; some of the most important are as follows(Snowden, 2002):

the complexity of the concept its introduction requires specic organizational culture and

practices, human resources policies, marketing and changemanagement

the intangibleness of its benetsmany business peoplend it difcult to associate investment in knowledge man-agement with improvements in company results.

it needs to be supported by the information and communica-tion technologies


3/14

744 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYMarch 2008DOI: 10.1002/asi

Several different theories have been put forward to get togrips with the rst three problems associated with KM pre-viously cited. Such proposals include the cognitive (Chiu,Hsu, & Wang, 2006), motivational (Hall, 2003; King &Marks, 2006), economic (Eliasson, 2005; Ke & Wei, 2005),or organizational theories (Gray & Meister, 2006; Revilla,Acosta, & Sarkis, 2005). These theories have been usedto deal with the formal aspects and essentially attempt to

explain the concept of knowledge, its typology, and theactions to be carried out in order to favor its developmentand management.

As far as the fourth problem is concerned, the generallyaccepted solution is to develop a KMS, that is to say, a spe-cialized system, supported by information and communica-tion technologies, that interacts with the organizationscomputer systems to make the processes of creating, collect-ing, organizing, accessing, and using knowledge as auto-matic as possible (Abdullah et al., 2002).

According to Ernst and Young (2001), organizations arebasically putting into practice ve types of projects relatedwith KMS implementation: creation of Intranets and corpo-rate portals, data warehouses or knowledge repositories(Inmon, 1996), implementation of decision support tools,implementation of groupware, and creation of documentmanagement systems (Lindvall, Rus, & Sinha, 2003).

Thus, the architecture of information systems in enter-prises that wish to implement a KMS should provide a set of tools for supporting the smart integration of all enterprisecomputer components.

However, the development and implementation of KMSthat embrace the whole organization, including knowledgeresulting from its relations with other institutions with whichit collaborates and which also incorporate the managementof tacit knowledge, is a more complex affair that has still notbeen satisfactorily resolved (Heinrichs, & Lin, 2005). In thisregard, Schutt (2003) describes the evolution that the differ-ent generations of KMS have undergone and explains whythey did not live up to the expectations they had raised. Oneof the main reasons, as conrmed by Shin, Holden, andSchmidt (2001), is the lack of a methodology to guide theKMS development and implementation project.

KM-IRIS Methodology

In order to successfully carry out a KMS developmentand implementation project, while at the same time reducing

the degree of complexity, it would be a great aid to be ableto use a stage-based methodology that denes the wholecreative process in each phase. This would involve dening,among other things, the tasks to be performed, the tech-niques to be used, the modelling languages for representingthe knowledge and the technological infrastructure thatallows knowledge to be stored, processed, and distributed,depending on the roles that have been dened.

With a view to solving this problem of a lack of suchknowledge management methodologies, since 2003, the IRISGroup at the Universitat Jaume I in Castell (Spain) has been

working on a project entitled Methodology for KnowledgeManagement. The objective was to develop and validate auseful, practical methodology that can be used to guide theprocess of developing and implementing a system for gath-ering, managing, applying, and transferring the knowledgethat is generated both inside an enterprise and in the relationsit has with the different organizations it works with. At thesame time, it must also ensure the quality, security, and

authenticity of the knowledge supplied.First of all, the methodology, called KM-IRIS, was

dened on a general level so that it could be used as a guideto manage knowledge in any kind of organization thatwished to do so. It was later applied to a large textile enter-prise in order to (a) validate and document the benets andlessons learned in the form of a properly understandablecase study and (b) improve the initial results by applying theconclusions extracted from those ndings to them.

The general methodology is divided into ve phases:

1. analysis and identication of the target knowledge2. extraction of the target knowledge3. classication and representation4. processing and storage5. utilization and continuous improvement

We will now describe each of the phases that make upthe methodology in more detail, that is, the activities involvedin each step, the techniques and tools that can be used to aid theprocess, and the main results that are to be expected (seeFigure 1).

PHASE I. Identication

One of the aspects that usually generates most confusionin KM is the difference between knowledge and informa-tion. This uncertainty is increased by the fact that KM relieson information technologies for support instead of a set of specic technologies that could be called knowledge tech-nologies . If information and knowledge are not the same,then there seems to be something strange about the fact thatknowledge can be handled using technologies that weredesigned for processing information.

Figure 2 attempts to unravel this paradox. As we see it,knowledge and information are different. The individualwho possesses knowledge (i.e., the awareness that he or shehas acquired through training common sense, experience,

and so on; McInerney, 2002) needs to analyse and assess in-formation so that in a given situation, they can make theright decisions or carry out the activities that have beenproposed. In this context, the goal of the KMS is to identifyexisting knowledge and extract, collect, and codify it asinformation so that it can be stored and distributed using acomputer system. Thus, the KMS transforms the organiza-tions knowledge into information that will later be utilizedby individuals to make better decisions or to better performtheir tasks and duties. The quantity and quality of informa-tion that is used by the individuals in the organization to


4/14


make decisions based on their knowledge therefore increasesbecause now it is not only produced by processing data butalso comes from already existing knowledge. Moreover, theKMS helps to generate new knowledge because having

more information available means that when faced with thesame situation, individuals are more likely to make a differ-ent kind of decision or to solve problems in a more efcientway, which, in turn, is a source of feedback for the system.

Efficient use of knowledgewithin the organisation

Knowledge portal(Executable knowledgemap)

Model of the Knowledgemap

Set of input variables Extraction and calculation

procedures

Conceptual blocks ofknowledge

Target knowledge Categories

EXPECTED RESULTS COMPUTER SUPPORTTOOLSTECHNIQUESACTIVITIESPHASES

Templates to define theinput variables

Reference models forextracting and calculatingtarget knowledge

Metamodelling (UML) Ontologies Conceptual maps

BPM techniques ETL techniques Document/DBMS Data warehouse OLAP Data mining

Office automation tools

Modelling tools Learning tools

e-Learning

Groupware TQM ISO standard of quality

Establish training and continuousimprovement mechanisms among themembers of the organisation

Carry out maintenance and the feedbackprocess on the knowledge managementsystem

PHASE V.Utilisation

BPM tools ETL tools Document/DBMS Data warehouse OLAP Data mining

Develop the technological infrastructuresupporting the knowledge map by followingan object-oriented methodology for thedevelopment of computer systems

PHASE IV.Processing

Modelling tools Ontology engineering

tools

Establish the relations within the targetknowledge

Draw up the knowledge map

PHASE III.Representation

Office automation tools Modelling tools

Extract knowledge from sources in orderto define the input variables and categoriseit

Define the extraction and calculationprocedures

PHASE II.Extraction

Office automation tools Modelling tools

Templates andquestionnaires to identifyblocks of knowledge

Reference modelsconcerning the targetknowledge

Identify the conceptual blocks ofknowledge

Classify into ontological categories Define the target knowledge (knowledge

requirements)

PHASE I.Identification

FIG. 1. KM-IRIS Methodology for knowledge management in an organisation.

INFORMATION

KMS(ICT)

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

To makedecisionsTo carry outactivities

Systematises (collects,codifies, stores)

Distributes

Transformsknowledge

intoinformation

Generate

Create new

Supports

Processed

Is used

DATA

FIG. 2. KMS relation with information and knowledge.


5/14


6/14


within the organization, the target knowledge of each block,their location, and the way they interrelate with the otherelements on the map, as well as what input variables arerequired to obtain them and the procedure for calculating orobtaining them. At this level, the CIM model is aided by theuse of conceptual and ontological maps as a step prior to set-ting out a common framework of the concepts inherent to theorganization.

The PIM model will result from the transformation of themodel of the CIM level knowledge map. This phase involvesdetermining what part of the CIM model is worthwhile com-puterizing and then running the previously dened transfor-mation mechanisms.

PHASE IV. Processing

Once the PIM model of the knowledge map has beenobtained, the next step is to generate an executable model for

it that can be run on a certain technological platform. Thismodel, called a Platform Specic Model (PSM) in the MDAapproach, is produced as the result of processing the knowl-edge map on a specic computer platform in order to allowthe enterprise to obtain and utilize the knowledge whereverand whenever it is requested.

The activities to be carried out in this phase are similar tothose proposed in any other object-oriented methodology fordeveloping a computer system, but they are based on thepreviously obtained PIM models. The nal result will be aknowledge portal that shows the knowledge map of the

enterprise and offers different tools with which to locate andaccess it.

PHASE V. Utilisation

The last phase is the utilization of the knowledge, whichinvolves not only making a knowledge portal available tothe organization but also providing it with the mechanisms itneeds to make efcient use of the KMS that has been devel-oped (Desouza & Awazu, 2005). This involves performingdifferent types of tasks related to training, evaluation, con-tinuous improvement, and maintenance. Some of the mostnotable tasks are as follows:

Establish policies and procedures to allow self-maintenanceof the system (Tsai, 2003). In order to achieve this objective,the knowledge portal must be integrated with the differentcomputer systems used in the enterprise. In this way, all the

explicit input variables will be extracted automatically. It isalso important to introduce organizational changes so thattacit technical knowledge is codied and stored in such away as to make it automatically available from the portal.For example, templates and forms must be dened for stor-ing know-how, skills, experience, and so forth so that whatwas previously kept inside peoples minds, in specic docu-ments or was jotted down on a piece of article, is now inte-grated within the portal.

Establish a system of interrelated indicators that keep us per-manently informed about the status of the KMS at both thestrategic, technological and organizational levels. There are

TARGET

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge thatorganisationswant tomanage

K n o w

l e d g e

S o u r c e s

Extraction andCalculationProcedure

Conceptual Blockof KnowledgeOWNER

input

output

Input VariablesTacit Input VariablesExplicit Input Variables

Process Documents Owners Employees

Explicit Knowledge Sources Tacit Knowledge Sources

FIG. 3. Phase II of the KM-IRIS Methodology for knowledge management.


7/14


a number of different methods for measuring KM perfor-mance that can be used to achieve this goal, and they canbe classied into three types: (a) qualitative and quantitative,(b) nancial and nonnancial, and (c) internal and externalperformance approaches (Liao, 2003). From a practical pointof view, one of the most useful of these is the one proposedby Chen and Chen (2005), who developed a model that con-sists of a set of interrelated indicators to evaluate knowledgemanagement activities from the following perspectives:knowledge creation, knowledge conversion, knowledgecirculation, and knowledge execution.

Consideration of cultural aspects to facilitate the partici-pation and cooperation of all members of staff at the orga-nization, as well as all the stakeholders involved in theorganizations objectives, that is, interactions with cus-tomers, suppliers, administration, trade unions, and so forth.

Adaptation of the General Methodology to theParticular Case of an Enterprise

As far as the activities, tasks, and results in each phase areconcerned, the methodology described above can be applied

to any type of organization. Nevertheless, in order to make iteasier to apply, specialized versions can be created by mod-ifying the templates, questionnaires, reference models, andso forth to adapt them to the specic characteristics of eachtype of organization. The adaptation of the general method-ology to the specic case of enterprises can be seen below(see Figure 4). The methodology was applied to a large tex-tile enterprise so as to be able to validate and rene it.

PHASE I. Identication

A set of blocks of knowledge that is sure to appear in anyenterprise, and which the enterprise will need in order toidentify its target knowledge, were dened for use whenthe organization is an enterprise. These conceptual blocksare as follows: owners, suppliers and customers, employees,administration and trade unions, organization, product orservice, process and resources. The target knowledge weseek to know was identied for each of these blocks andgrouped in different ontological categories (Newman &Conrad, 2000).

PHASE II. Extraction

The variables used to obtain the target knowledge that

was previously identied, as well as the sources of tacit andexplicit knowledge, were determined in this phase. The mostnotable explicit sources include databases, document data-bases, business intelligence information systems, data ware-housing, OLAP systems, and data mining informationsystems. Tacit sources of knowledge are to found in thepersonnel that collaborate with the enterprise (customers,employees, suppliers, and so forth), as well as in organiza-tions such as trade unions, business associations, and soforth. Lastly, the extraction and calculation procedures weredened for each item of target knowledge.

Table 1 shows an example of the results obtained in Phase Iand Phase II of the KM-IRIS methodology after tailoring itfor knowledge management in an enterprise. Employee and

process deal with tacit sources of knowledge, and customer and product are concerned with explicit sources.

PHASE III. Representation

In order to facilitate the creation of the knowledge mapfor an enterprise, the KM-IRIS methodology includes areference model that represents the target knowledge to bemanaged within a typical enterprise. Two aspects were takeninto account during the development of this model. The rstinvolved the use of ontologies (Holsapple & Joshi, 2004) asa way of providing a common basis of understanding through-out the whole enterprise, while the second considered theutilization of the MDA approach and UML to obtain a visu-al representation of the map of enterprise knowledge thatcan be turned into an executable model.

Thus, in building the reference model of the knowledgemap, a new business ontology was dened that took intoaccount (a) the different business concepts explained inBertolazzi, Krusich, and Missikoff (2001), (b) the differentconceptual blocks of knowledge proposed in phase I of theKM-IRIS methodology, and (c) the different dimensionsdened within the context of the modelling of the businessso as to provide a holistic representation of the enterprise,i.e., business, organization, process, product, and resource.

This generic business ontology can also be tailored byany enterprise to t its own domain according to the targetknowledge it identies.

The MDA approach proposed by the OMG (ObjectManagement Group, 2003) was also used to develop agraphic model of the knowledge map at both the CIM andthe PIM levels, which in the fourth phase can be transformedinto the corresponding PSM. UML was used as the model-ling language in the creation of the models because it hasbecome a commonly accepted standard for the object-orientedmodelling of all kinds of systems. However, because UML issomewhat limited as a business modelling language, wetook advantage of the new capabilities offered by UML 2.0and used the proles mechanism to extend the UML meta-model to the specic domain of enterprise knowledge.A prole was therefore dened in UML 2.0 that allowed theenterprise knowledge to be modelled in different views thattook into account both the previously dened generic busi-

ness model and the conceptual blocks of knowledge andtarget knowledge specied in earlier phases.Figure 5 shows the conceptual diagram that was followed

to elaborate the reference model of the map of enterpriseknowledge at the CIM level, which represents the target knowl-edge that is to be managed in a typical enterprise and willlater be used as a reference model in the development of theknowledge map of a particular enterprise.

In Figure 5. it can be seen how the generic business on-tology is taken as the starting point to establish the viewsneeded to congure the map of enterprise knowledge in


8/14


9/14


accordance with the conceptual blocks of knowledge andtarget knowledge that were identied at an earlier stage.Each of these views represents a specic conceptual block of knowledge that has been determined within the enterprise,and it is linked to its corresponding ontological category.Thus, for example, the product view includes all the knowl-edge requirements set out in the earlier phases in terms of theproducts and services of the enterprise. Knowledge aboutthese is represented as facts, rules, and attitudes and is mod-elled according to the UML2 prole that was developed. Inaddition, the graphic model of each view offers access to dif-ferent levels of detail and is connected to the other businessviews that are linked by means of the different ontologicalcategories.

PHASE IV. Processing

In this phase, the PIM models obtained in the previousphase were taken as the basis to design an information sys-tem that enables an enterprise to process, store, and presentthe map of enterprise knowledge in a suitable manner anddepending on the users access privileges, as well as to gen-erate new knowledge (Sutton, 2005).

The computer system is organized around a knowledgeportal, understood as being a computer solution that makes it

possible to extract and process the information variables fromthe different sources of knowledge and to generate and inte-grate the target knowledge required by the enterprise. Thus, theportal will enable us to gather knowledge generated aboutthedifferentcollaborations, projects/worksunderway, differentactivities, different ways of going about things, and the resultsthat are gradually obtained, together with recommendationsandboth formaland nonformal best practices .

The corporate knowledge portal is built upon a techno-logical infrastructure based on the intelligent integration of technological and functional components that allow a con-nection to be established among the following systems:

FrontSide: WebServices interfaces in each one of the appli-cations designed for corporate management and for each of the conceptual blocks of knowledge, i.e., customers/sales,suppliers/purchases and the supply chain, employees andowners of the member enterprises (internal relationships),administration, trade unions, and business district (collabo-rations/external actions).

Business BackSide: nancial, logistics, warehouses, account-ing, human resources, and so forth.

Knowledge Management BackSide.

Thus, using the Internet (together with other technologiesfor both the presentation and the interface) as a means of

TABLE 1. Example of Phases I and II of the KM-IRIS Methodology after tailoring it to the needs of an enterprise.

Ontological category

Target knowledge

Description

Satisfaction

Economic satisfaction

Extent to which the employee

is satised with the salary heor she is paid

Sales

Receive an order

Best practices in accepting

orders

Prot

Economic protabilitycustomers

Classication of customers

according to their economicprotability

Cost

Economic protability of product

Classication of customers

according to their economicprotability

Input variables

Knowledge source

Calculation procedure

Extraction procedure

Opinion about employeesand immediate bosses

Average salary in the sector

Employee consultancy rms,business associations, tradeunions in the business sector

Statistical calculation

Questionnaires and personalenquiries

Information (DocumentsData) that is needed orgenerated to carry out thetask, and identication of itsorigin or destination

Human and technologicalresources that are involved

Controls or associatedregulations

Employee

Detailed description of theprocedure for running the task using the IDEF0 modellinglanguage

Templates for dening prolesof work positions drawn up bythe IRIS group

Annual sales turnover Average price of products

acquired Average quality of products

acquired Number of claims lodged Average length of payment

period in days Customers behaviour

patterns

Databases and documentdatabases data warehouses


ETL, OLT and OLAPtechniques data miningtechniques

Average cost of the rawmaterials and labour usedto manufacture the product

Average prot obtainedfrom sale of the product

Average cost assigned tothe product as advertisingcosts

Average cost deriving fromnancial expenses arisingfrom marketing theproduct

Databases and documentdatabases data warehouses


ETL, OLT and OLAPtechniques data miningtechniques

Phase II

Conceptual block Employee Process Customer Product

Phase I


10/14


interconnection, the knowledge portal will be the end pointof the computer system supporting the KMS within an en-

terprise (see Figure 6).Consequently, when designing the knowledge portal, the

following technologies must be integrated in a suitable andefcient manner:

intranet for implementing and integrating the differentapplications for internal knowledge management. It alsoallows users to obtain the target knowledge of the remain-ing conceptual blocks from internal sources within theenterprise.

extranet for managing knowledge about business (cus-tomers and suppliers) and the surrounding environment, thatis to say, the administration, trade unions, and the business

district itself. It will also be used to extract part of theemployees and owners target knowledge from these exter-nal sources so that it can be stored in the internal backsideknowledge repository.

infrastructure consisting of networks and communica-tions within the enterprise, in addition to the systems of con-trol and management of access and authorization, that giverise to the different internal or external subportals, as well asendowing them with a suitable degree of security dependingon the roles and user proles that are dened.

enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relation-ship management (CRM) and supply chain management

(SCM) for managing business knowledge that will pro-vide information that is useful for generating new knowl-

edge on the knowledge management intranet (Chalmeta,2006).

workow tools for controlling workow and Groupwareas a support for collaboration (Deek & McHugh, 2003; Ellis,Gibbs, & Rein, 1991).

data warehousing, business intelligence, and other deci-sion support tools for allowing feedback and recom-mendations from the organizations broad fundamentalexperience and from the knowledge stored in the backsideknowledge repository to be incorporated into decision mak-ing (Chalmeta & Grangel, 2005).

Other software applications such as document manage-ment systems for allowing information xed on somekind of support to be searched swiftly and according to dif-

ferent criteria, among other things. At the same time, theyalso make it possible to keep track of versions, control ac-cess by levels of security, and avoid redundancy in the doc-uments that are stored.

PHASE V. Utilization

Although proper utilization of KM shares a numberof common features regardless of the type of organizationin which it is applied (it is based on training, evaluation,

Representation of theenterprise conceptsat a high level

Modelling ofenterpriseknowledge

ENTERPRISEONTOLOGY

Knowledge

Rules

Facts

Attitudes

Rules

Facts

Attitudes

Rules

Facts

Attitudes

...

Graphicmodel

Graphicmodel

According to the conceptualblocks of knowledge andthe target knowledge thatare identified

According to theenterprise ontology thatis defined

Businessview

Organisationalview

Productview

Processview

Resourceview

Knowledge

Generation ofviews

FIG. 5. Conceptual diagram for obtaining the map of enterprise knowledge at the CIM level.


11/14


continuous improvement, and system maintenance), whenthe organization is an enterprise, the following specic as-pects, among others, concerning the utilization of KM mustalso be taken into account:

Consider the cultural aspects required to facilitate the partic-ipation and cooperation in the system of all the employeesand owners, in addition to all the stakeholders involved inthe organizations business operations, the most important of which are its customers, suppliers, administration, and tradeunions.

Consider training in this area as part of the strategic invest-ment of the enterprise, like plants and equipment; it is thusranked as a vital component in the construction of competi-

tiveness. Guarantee the entire workforce the right to benet both col-lectively and individually from the cognitive enrichmentthat arises from well-channelled and controlled transfers,and prevent any kind of monopolistic use of knowledgefrom being carried out by individuals who are driven by en-tirely personal, vested interests.

Solve the problem of property rights by recognizing theexclusive property rights of the knowledge held by the em-ployee, according to the personal effort they make in carry-ing out their duties and the economic cost they had to pay,before they were taken on by the enterprise, in order to

achieve the cognitive foundations that allowed them to laterbecome part of it.

A Case Example

The KM-IRIS methodology was applied to a large textileenterprise. The procedure adopted for the application of theKM-IRIS methodology was as follows. First, a presentationwas given at the enterprise so that management staff couldsee the aims of the knowledge management project. This wasaccompanied by an explanation of the KM-IRIS methodo-logy, which was to be used to guide the execution of theproject. During the presentation, it was shown that the method-ology had a staged structure and that it included predened

extraction and calculation procedures, as well as clearlydened tasks and reference models of the target knowledge ina typical enterprise that would need to be compared only withthe requirements of this company. These characteristicsenabled the directors at the rm to quickly understand (a) thescope of the Project, (b) the benets that it was going to offerthem, (c) the activities in which they would have to collabo-rate, (d) the resources that would have to be assigned, and (e)the impact that the project would have on the enterprise. Theywere therefore already avoiding some of the main causes of failure when implementing KMS.

C K M

B K M

E K M

FIG. 6. Technological infrastructure proposed to support a knowledge portal.


12/14


The enterprise set up a committee that was responsible fordecisin making in issues related to the project. This com-mittee was made up of the information systems manager,the quality control manager, the logistics manager, and theperson in charge of communication and advertising. Otherparticipants in the actual execution of the project included themanagers from each department, members of staff fromthe computer department and, from time to time and as

required, other members of the operating staff at the rm.It is interesting to note that each of the members of the

committee identied the benets of the project according tohis or her own background. For example, the informationsystems manager was the rst to realize that the KMS wasgoing to lead to the integration of the rms computer sys-tems. The enterprise had many corporate IT systems thatwere heterogeneous and not integrated with one another.Each of them was used to meet different needs in specicareas or aspects of the rm, such as ERP, CRM, or SCM.Yet, these systems did not offer the organization what it waslooking for, that is to say, homogeneity, interoperability,easy access, and knowledge of its possibilities throughoutthe different departments in order to prevent duplication of information or data, and so on. The decision to implement anew system centred on the knowledge portal, which was theentrance to all the knowledge in the organization, was to bethe factor that integrates the different technological solutionswithin the rm. On the other hand, the head of communica-tions saw the portal as the ideal place to centralize all theuseful knowledge the rm possessed regarding marketing,internal regulations, public news about the rm and its com-petitors, and so forth. At the same, it could also be used tomake such knowledge known among employees, customers,suppliers, and other collaborators.

The project was actually carried out following the stepsspecied in the KM-IRIS methodology. First, the referencemodel was compared with the real situation of the textile en-terprise so that the target knowledge they wished to managecould be dened. The most signicant changes were the ad-dition of a new conceptual block (the vision of the enterprisefrom outside) and incorporating, eliminating, or renamingthe predened target knowledge.

Once the target knowledge had been dened, the differentinput variables that we needed to obtain the target knowl-edge and their sources were identied. After this, the extrac-tion and calculation procedure for each item of targetknowledge was developed. Explicit sources refer to the

rms IT system, which, in this case, consist of the transac-tional computer system (ERP, CRM, specic logistics sys-tems, etc.), the data warehouse, which provided reports andmanagement control indicators, and the documentary infor-mation system. Tacit sources refer to persons, and in order toextract their knowledge, we drew up a number of surveys(for example, concerning the organizational climate and cul-ture, employees motivation and satisfaction, trainingneeds), forms (for example, for actions carried out in re-sponse to a claim made by a customer; hence, from now onthese are no longer contained in a persons experience, on a

piece of article, or in an isolated document written out on thecomputer, but will instead be stored in a computer system),and collaborative tools.

All the results thus obtained were then recorded and usedto generate a map of the knowledge of the enterprise. To doso, the methods of representation dened in the KM-IRISmethodology were used.

The next stage was to start to develop the technological

solution. This takes the form of a knowledge portal that can beaccessed by the rms collaborators. From a functional point of view, the portal is divided into ve areas. One area allows ac-cess to the different blocks of knowledge the rm has. Anotherone is a search engine that allows us to nd the target knowl-edge when we do not know the exact route. The search engineindexes not only the contents of this portal but also those fromother external sources, such as the corporate Web sites of cus-tomers, suppliers, or competitors. Athird area of the portal con-cerns collaborative environments where members of staff fromdifferent departments can work on joint projects. The fourtharea includes news related to the enterprise. Lastly, the fth areais for administering the portal (denition of proles, contents,services, conguration, etc.). From a technological point of view, the portal is connected to all the computer systems in therm (so that it can extract the explicit input variables), and it isalso connected to the forms, surveys, and so forth, to enable itto extract the tacit input variables.

Finally, implementation of the KMS was carried out.The rst step was to invite the top management staff at therm to a presentation and to present the project publicly inthe press (the enterprise thought that its having this sort of KMS would enhance its image as an innovative rm). Thenext stage was to train users who are currently running thesystem.

As well as improving the methodology as a result of applying it to different companies, the potential for develop-ing research in this area has been proved and a series of lessons have been learned:

In order for enterprises to integrate knowledge managementeffectively with all their existing business processes, bothmanagement and employees must understand and assimilatethe strategic business value of KM. These key participantsmust understand that KM is not simply a technological strat-egy but rather a business strategy that is essential for the suc-cess of their individual departments and of the organizationas a whole.

The knowledge-oriented business model is seldom practisedand poorly known, regardless of whether we are talkingabout an operational or management level.

Historical factors like culture, power, etc., condition peopleand companies not to share knowledge.

There is a need for more scientic production showing KMmethodologies and business experiences. As Blair (2002)says, experts learn from case studies.

The need to encourage the training of staff in KM. It hasbeen shown that staff training programs do not include theparticipation of employees in courses or other types of events related to KM.


13/14


All these difculties are related to the low level of aware-ness of the importance of KM and therefore of the benetsthat proper knowledge management can generate.

Conclusions

To successfully carry out a project aimed at developingand implementing a KMS, it is essential to have a step-by-step methodology that directs the development and imple-mentation processes. However, existing methodologies fordeveloping information systems (ISDM) are not oriented to-wards the specic problems arising in this type of systems.

Within this framework, this article has offered a descrip-tion of a methodology obtained as the result of the KM-IRISproject. This methodology guides the process of developingand implementing a KMS that allows knowledge to becollected, managed, and applied, while ensuring the quality,security and authenticity of the knowledge provided. Themethodology was rst presented on a general level so that itcould be used as a guide to manage knowledge in any kind

of organization that wished to do so, and it was then appliedto a specic enterprise.

As a result, practitioners who follow this KM-basedmethodology for developing a KMS in an enterprise willbenet from the following series of advantages that cannotbe gained by using ISDM:

A better denition of the vision and strategy of the projectbecause those in charge in the organizations in which theKMS is to be implemented will be in a better position to un-derstand the scope and consequences of the project, as wellas the important opportunities that can be obtained by hav-ing a KMS.

Better planning and management of the project because thephases, tasks, techniques, and documents to be used, as wellas the results to be reached in each of the phases, are allclearly dened.

Greater chances of successfully implementing the projectbecause the methodology has a reference model of thetypical target knowledge of an enterprise and a specic mod-elling language for representing the knowledge map of acompany in an intuitive, graphic manner. In this way, the de-nition of the knowledge requirements will be easier andwill better match the needs of the organization.

Finally, it is important to state the limitations of the study.The model was developed to be used in all kinds of organiza-

tions. However, in this study, the applicability of the pro-posed methodology is tested by only one casea large textileenterprise. Whether the proposed methodology can beapplied successfully to other organizations that are differentin terms of size, culture (e.g., national culture, organizationalculture), and industry is still unknown. These heterogeneouscharacteristics may inuence (a) the identication of stake-holders, such as customers, suppliers, government, academia,etc. and (b) the way knowledge is managed. As a result, itmay be necessary to add new blocks of knowledge, adapt theprole or perhaps modify or incorporate new phases, tasks,

or methods. Another aspect to keep in mind is how the suc-cess of the KMS implementation can be evaluated by theKM-IRIS methodology. These questions will be on the futureresearch agenda concerning the KM-IRIS methodology.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by DPI2006-14708, CICYTDPI2003-02515, and the European Commission within the6th Framework Programme (INTEROP Network of Excel-lence, IST-2003-508011).

References

Abdullah, M.S., Benest, I., Evans, A., & Kimble, C. (2002). Knowledgemodelling techniques for developing knowledge management systems.Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/mis/docs/ ECKM 2002.pdf

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowl-edge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.

Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (Ed.). (2006). Information systems develop-ment methodologies, techniques & tools (4th ed.). UK: McGraw-HillEducation, Maidenhead.

Bertolazzi, P., Krusich, C., & Missikoff, M. (2001). An approach to the def-inition of a core enterprise ontology: CEO. In A. DAtri, & M. Missikoff,(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Open Enterprise So-lutions: Systems, experiences, and organizations (pp. 1415). Rome:Luiss Publications.

Blair, D.C. (2002). Knowledge management: Hype, hope, or help? Journalof the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(12), 10191028.

Chalmeta, R. (2006). Methodology for customer relationship management.Journal of Systems and Software, 79(7), 10151024.

Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2005). Performance measurement systems forvirtual enterprise integration. Journal of Computer Integrated Manufac-

turing, 18, 7384.Chiu, C.-H., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E.T.G. (2006). Understanding knowl-

edge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital andsocial cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 18721888.

Chen, A., & Chen, M. (2005). Measurement practices for knowledge man-agement: An option perspective. Lecture Notes of Computer Science,3520, 387399.

Day, R.E. (2001). Totality and representation: Ahistory of knowledge man-agement through European documentation, critical modernity, and post-Fordism. Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 52(9), 725735.

Day, R.E. (2005). Clearing up implicit knowledge: Implications for knowl-edge management, information science, psychology, and social episte-mology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 56(6), 630635.

Deek, F.P., & McHugh, J.A.M. (Ed.). (2003). Computer-supported collabo-ration with applications to software development. Norwell: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Desouza, K.C. & Awazu, Y. (2005). Maintaining knowledge managementsystems: A strategic imperative. Journal of the American Society for In-formation Science and Technology, 56(7), 765768.

Devedzic, V. (1999). A survey of modern knowledge modeling techniques.Expert Systems with Applications, 17(4), 275294.

Dretske, F.I. (Ed.). (1981). Knowledge and the ow of information.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eliasson, G. (2005). The nature of economic change and management in anew knowledge based information economy. Information Economics andPolicy, 17(4), 428456.


14/14

Myers, P.S. (1996). Knowledge management and organizational design: Anintroduction. In P.S. Myers (Ed.), Knowledge management and organiza-tional design (pp. 16). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Newman, B.D., & Conrad, K.W. (2000). A framework for characterizingknowledge management methods, practices, and technologies. RetrievedJanuary 8, 2008, from http://www.tdan.com/view-articles/4852.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (Eds.). (1995). The knowledge creating com-pany: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.New York: Oxford University Press.

Object Management Group. (2003). MDA guide version 1.0.1. RetrievedNovember 29, 2006, from http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?omg/ 03-06-01

Object Management Group. (2004). Unied modeling language (UML)specication: Superstructure, version 2.0. Retrieved November 29, 2006,from http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm

OLeary, D.E. (1998). Guest editors introduction: Knowledge-managementsystems-converting and connecting. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3),3033.

OLeary, D.E., Kuokka, D., & Plant, R. (1997). Articial intelligence andvirtual organizations. Communications of the ACM, 40(1), 5259.

Revilla, E., Acosta, J., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Value perceptions and perfor-mance of research joint ventures: An organizational learning perspective.The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(2), 157172.

Schtt, P. (2003). The post-Nonaka knowledge management. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9(6), 451462.

Shin, M., Holden, T., & Schmidt, R.A. (2001). From knowledge theoryto management practice: Towards an integrated approach. InformationProcessing & Management, 37(2), 335355.

Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptiveself-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100111.

Sutton, M. (2005). Review of integrated document and content manage-ment: Strategies for exploiting enterprise knowledge by Len Asprey andMichael Middleton. Information Processing & Management, 41(5),12991301.

Tsai, B. (2003). Information landscaping: Information mapping, charting,querying and reporting techniques for total quality knowledge manage-ment. Information Processing & Management, 39(4), 639664.

Viswanathan M., Yang, Y.K., Whangbo, T.K., Kim, N.B., & Garner, B.(2005). Knowledge-based compliance management systems-methodologyand implementation. In S. Burm & R. Lee (Eds.) Proceedings of the

Fourth Annual ACIS International Conference on Computer and Infor-mation Science. (ICIS05) (pp 2529). Washington: IEEE ComputerSociety.

Walters, S.A., Broady, J.E., & Hartley, R.J. (1994). A review of informationsystems development methodologies. Library Management, 15(6), 519.

Yadav, S., Shaw, N., Webb, L., & Sutcu, C. (2001). Comments on factorsthat impact implementing a system development methodology. IEEETransactions on Software Engineering, 27(3), 279281.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYMarch 2008 755

Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., & Rein, G.L. (1991). Groupware: Some issues andexperiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 3858.

Ernst & Young. (2001). An executive perspectives on knowledge in the or-ganization. New York: Ernst & Young center for Business Innovation andBusiness Intelligence.

Grangel, R., Chalmeta, R., & Campos, C. (2006). Denition of target knowl-edge in virtual enterprises. In W. Abramowicz, & H.C. Mayr (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Business Informa-tion Systems (pp. 256266). Klagenfurt: Lecture Notes in Informatics.

Gray, P.H., & Meister, D.B. (2006). Knowledge sourcing methods. Infor-mation & Management, 43(2), 142156.

Hall, H. (2003). Applying exchange theories in information scienceresearch. Library & Information Science Research, 25(3), 287306.

Heinrichs, J.H., & Lim, J.-S. (2005). Model for organizational knowledgecreation and strategic use of information. Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science and Technology, 56(6), 620629.

Holsapple, C.W., & Joshi, K.D. (2004). A formal knowledge management on-tology: Conduct, activities, resources, and inuences. Journal of the Ameri-can Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(7), 593612.

Inmon, B. (Ed.). (1996). Building the data warehouse. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies,NISAD: A systematic framework. UK: McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Ke, W., & Wei, K.K. (2005). Critical factors affecting the rm to shareknowledge with trading partners: A comparative exploratory case study.

In Q. Li, & T.-P. Liang (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh InternationalConference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 177183). Xian: ACM.

King, W.R., & Marks, P.V. (2006). Motivating knowledge sharing througha knowledge management system. Omega, the international Journal of Management Science, 36(1), 131146.

Liao, S. (2003). Knowledge management technologies and applicationsLiterature review from 1995 to 2002. Expert Systems with Applications,25(2), 155164.

Lin, F., & Hsueh, C. (2006). Knowledge map creation and maintenance forvirtual communities of practice. Information Processing & Management,42(2), 551568.

Lindvall, M., Rus, I., & Sinha, S. (2003). Technology support for knowl-edge management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2640, 94103.

McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 53(12), 10091019.McInerney, C., & Day, R. (2002). Introduction to the JASIST special issueon knowledge management. Journal of the American Society for Infor-mation Science and Technology, 53(12), 10081009.

Meso, P., Madey, G., Troutt, M., & Liegle, J., (2006). The knowledgemanagement efcacy of matching information systems developmentmethodologies with application characteristicsAn experimental study.Journal of Systems and Software, 79(1), 1528