Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1005
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Reviewing Knowledge Management Literature
Javed Iqbal 1 and Yassir Mahmood
2
Abstract
Knowledge Management (KM) is getting remarkable attention and is conceived as an important
domain within the business as well as in the research field. It is necessary to synthesize the KM
related work that in our view may reveal the major research themes. The aim of this research is
to analyze and review the relevant literature in the field of KM with the primary objective of
uncovering fundamental KM trends to build a map for future direction. In this regard
―Information System Management‖ journal has been selected while the articles reviewed were
published during the period 1999-2011. The findings suggest that much lesser collaboration
exists for research between academia and industry. The conceptual /descriptive methods have
dominated KM research. Organization as unit of analysis with KM strategies were found to be
the most widely published topics within KM domain. Further a number of literature gaps are
explored that need attention of researchers in the context of KM research.
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Information System Management, Research Trends,
review
1 Assistant professor, HOD, Department of Technology Management Faculty of Management Sciences (FMS), International
Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
2 PhD scholar, Faculty of Management Sciences (FMS), International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1006
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
1- Introduction
―Knowledge is power, in post-capitalism, power comes from transmitting information to
make it productive, not from hiding it‖ Peter Drucker. For an organization knowledge is at
central stage (Davenport et al., 1998) and has been accredited an indispensible component for the
development of core competencies (Massa and Testa 2009). In today‘s knowledge based
economy, this intellectual resource is considered much important than any other resource. To add
value to knowledge there is a need for Knowledge Management (KM).
KM is getting remarkable attention and is conceived as an important domain within the
business as well as in the research field. It is rapidly becoming an integral part of business. In
near future KM related strategies will act as a source of competitive keenness for any
organization (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Thus KM can be stated as a prerequisite for enhancing
productivity and flexibility in organizations (Martensson 2000). Hence for an organization the
management of knowledge is an increasingly vital requirement.
KM in research has been defined in many ways, like Sousa and Hendriks (2006) defined
it as ―Knowledge management addresses policies, strategies, and techniques aimed at supporting
an organization‘s competitiveness by optimizing the conditions needed for efficiency
improvement, innovation, and collaboration among employees‖ (Sousa and Hendriks 2006).
While Alavi and Leidner (2001) have a different definition, they defined it as ―Knowledge
management is largely regarded as a process involving various activities considers the four basic
processes of creating, storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge‖ (Alavi and
Leidner 2001).
Since the inception of knowledge economy era the KM field has received severe attention
from academics and corporate sectors (Xu and Bernard 2011; Laleci et al. 2010). The boundaries
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1007
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
of KM are expanding with each passing day also in recent times due to enormous growth in
number of research publications, it is crucial to identify the diversity and breadth of KM field.
Recognizing the importance of KM, it is necessary to synthesize the KM related work from
multiple disciplines that in our view may reveal the major research themes. But to study KM as a
separate discipline of study, a number of difficulties are in the way (Dwivedi et al. 2011).
Regardless of these challenges, a stream of research continues to be conducted for managing
knowledge.
This study provides a literature review pertaining to KM research to capture and reveal
related patterns that are shared in past research to provide a better understanding and insight into
the future direction. In this regard ―Information System Management‖ journal has been selected
for the purpose while the articles reviewed were published during the period 1999-2011 with a
number of dimensions in KM research field are focused like publication year, active authors,
research paradigm, unit of analysis and major research topics. Also some demographic themes
like institute, country and continent having most of publications in KM research are identified. In
doing so a number of recent research trends in KM field are described.
The aim of this research is to analyze and review the relevant literature in the field of KM
with the primary objective of uncovering fundamental KM trends and to build a map for future
trends. The structure of this paper is as follow: the next section consists the research
methodology followed by the research findings, while in last conclusion and limitations of the
research are discussed.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1008
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
2-Research Methodology
For the purpose to review the literature on the KM, this study selected a single journal.
The selection of a single journal for review is not a new criterion. Recently Avison et al. (2008)
also used the same criteria of a single journal for reviewing KM literature. In this regard
―Information Systems Management‖ journal is selected. The previous name of this journal was
―Journal of Information System‖ whose name was changed to ―Information Systems
Management‖ in 1992. The journal Information System Management (ISM) has some of the
most cited articles in the field of KM. As far as this review is concerned, the articles were
selected using ―Advance Search‖ technique. During the search process, the keywords
―Knowledge Management‖ were employed in the ―Article Title‖ textfield, while ―Information
Systems Management‖ keywords were given in the ―Journal Title‖ textfield. The same search
technique was also used by Lee and Chen (2012) and a related search technique was used by
Diwivedi et al. (2011) in their meta-analysis. Against the search a total of 20 articles list was
received. Some sort of manual analysis was conducted in order to refine the article‘s list. Two
articles were dropped from the list. The one was not related to KM and the other was an editorial
note. The list of selected 18 articles for final analysis is included in table 1. The time span of the
selected articles is spread over 13 years i.e., the oldest article is from 1999 and the newest is
from 2011.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1009
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Table 1: Articles Reviewed
Author (s) Paper Year
1. Bourdreau, A. & Couillard, G. Systems Integration and Knowledge Management 1999
2. Bowman, B. J. Building Knowledge Management Systems 2002
3. Burkhard, R. J. et al. The Emerging Challenge of Knowledge Management
Ecosystems: A Silicon Valley High Tech Company Signals the
Future
2011
4. Chen, W. et al. Investigating Knowledge Management Factors Affecting
Chinese ICT Firms Performance: An Integrated KM
Framework
2011
5. Dwivedi, Y. K. et al. Research Trends in Knowledge Management: Analyzing the
Past and Predicting the Future
2011
6. Ghosh, B. & Scott, J. E. Effective Knowledge Management Systems for a Clinical
Nursing Setting
2006
7. Gray, P. Knowledge Management 2002
8. Hoven, J. V. D. Information Resource Management: Foundation for
Knowledge Management
2001
9. Kanter, J. Knowledge Management, Practically Speaking 1999
10. Karwowski, W. & Ahram, T. Z. Interactive Management of Human Factors Knowledge for
Human Systems Integration Using Systems Modeling
Language.
2009
11. King, W. R. Integrating Knowledge Management Into IS Strategy 1999
12. King, W. R. Playing an Integral Role in Knowledge Management 2000
13. King, W. R. IT Strategy and Innovation: Recent Innovations in Knowledge
Management
2006
14. King, W. R. Text Analytics: Boon to Knowledge Management? 2009
15. Kocharekar, R. K-Commerce: Knowledge-Based Commerce Architecture with
Convergence of E-Commerce and Knowledge Management
2001
16. Misra, D. C. et al. E-Knowledge Management Framework for Government
Organizations
2003
17. Sharp, D. Knowledge Management Today: Challenges and Opportunities 2003
18. Vail, E. F. Knowledge Mapping: Getting Started with Knowledge
Management
1999
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1010
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
3-Findings
The articles selected were analyzed along a number of dimensions. Each of the dimension
is discussed in parts below.
3.1 KM studies published year wise
The first analysis of this study has been undertaken is the KM publication year wise. This
category was adapted from Diwivedi et al. (2011). The details of the yearly publications are
included in table 2. The results suggest that highest number of articles were published in the year
1999 with 22.22% publications followed by the year 2011 with 16.66% of the total KM
publications. The lowest number of articles were published in the year 2000 with just 5.55 %
publication. In journal ISM the trend of KM publication is higher at the lower and upper end of
the selected duration i.e., 1999 was the time when the highest number of articles were got
published. Similarly in 2011, once again relatively the higher number of articles were published.
As it is known that 1999 was the time when KM was an emerging concept so it acquired the
attention of researchers. While in 2011 in organizations, once again the emphasis is put on KM
to get edge in the market.
Table 2: Year wise KM publications (adapted from Diwivedi et al. 2011)
Year Article Count
2011 3
2009 2
2006 2
2003 2
2002 2
2001 2
2000 1
1999 4
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1011
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Figure 1: KM publication yearly
3.2 KM studies in different volumes
Table 3 has the details of articles published in different volumes. A total of 8 volumes of
the ISM journal have published KM articles in which volume 16 has the highest number of
articles i.e., 22.22%, followed by volume 28 having 16.66% of the total KM articles; while
volume 17 has the least number of articles i.e., just 5.55%.
Table 3 Article in Different Volumes
Vol. Number Article Count
Vol. 16 4
Vol. 28 3
Vol. 18 2
Vol. 19 2
Vol. 20 2
Vol. 24 2
Vol. 26 2
Vol. 17 1
3.3 Active author’s contribution
To identify the authors who are contributing most, the selected articles were analyzed.
Table 4 has the details of active authors in KM field. As far as ISM journal is concerned, at the
top of the list is William King who has published 22.22% of the total articles. The rest of 27
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1012
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
authors have contribution only in a single article. This confirms the fact that most of authors
have published just once in the ISM journal; the most influencing authors in KM have not
contributed even a single article in this journal.
Table 4: Active Authors (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Author‘s Name Article Count Author‘s Name Article Count
King, WR 4 Karwowski, W 1
Sharif ,AM 1 Ahram, TZ 1
Al-Karaghouli,W 1 Bukhard, RJ 1
Bourdrea, A 1 Hill, TR 1
Coillard, G 1 Venkatsubramanyan, S 1
Hoven, JVD 1 Dwivedi,YK 1
Kanter, J 1 Venkitachalam, K 1
Sharp, D 1 Scott, JE 1
Misra, DC 1 Vail, EF 1
Hariharan, R 1 Weerakkody, V 1
Khaneja, M 1 Chen, W 1
Kocharekar, R 1 Elnaghi, M 1
Ghosh, B 1 Hatzakis,T 1
Bowman, BJ 1 Gray, P 1
3.4 Number of authors in a single article
Almost 61.11% of the articles are written by a single author. This is followed by the articles
which are written by 2 or 3 authors, each category has 16.66% contributions. Only 5% of the
articles are written by 5 authors (see table 5 for details). Further analysis suggest that almost 45%
of the articles are the joint efforts of multiple authors which state that comparing with joint
efforts authors mostly prefer to write articles by their own. The reason may be that most authors
may have the view that joint based efforts articles are less valued.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1013
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Table 5: Authors in a single article (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
No. Of Authors Article Count
1 Author 11
2 Author 3
3 Author 3
5 Author 1
3.5 Contributors from academia and industry
To identify whether the major portion of publications is from academia or industry the
articles were analyzed. This category was adapted from Avison et al. (2008). The results suggest
that significant number of articles were from academia (66.66%) comparing with the industry
(27.77%). The mix effort was only 5.55%. It is concluded from the results that the industry is
contributing to KM literature but with a very low frequency. Comparing with Avison et al.
(2008) findings it is clear that in ISM journal the industry contribution is much greater. Further
only a small proportion came from industry-academia with joint efforts which reveal that much
lesser collaboration exists between academia and industry.
Table 6: Academia vs industry contribution (adapted from Avison et al. 2008)
Vol. Number Article Count
Academia 12
Industry 5
Mix 1
3.6 KM studies according to institutions
When it comes to KM research from different institutes, a total of 10 institutes were
found to be publishing the KM research in ISM. Table 7 depicted the details of such institutes.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1014
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
At the top of the list is the University of Pittsburg and Brunel University, both of these having
highest number of publications i.e., 22.22% each. This is followed by the University of Colorado
having 11.11% publications. The rest of the 7 institutes have just 5.55% articles each. This
illustrates that only a few institutes are participating in KM publications. Further analysis
suggests that all institutes belong to only two countries U.K and U.S.A. The institutes from
U.S.A have relatively higher publications everywhere as far as U.K is concerned it is home to
ISM journal so their institutes preferred to publish in a home journal.
Table 7: Institutes representation in KM publication (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Institute Name Article Count Institute Name Article Count
University of Pittsburgh 4 Swansea University 1
Brunel University 4 Cardiff University 1
University of Colorado 2 Babson College 1
University of Central Florida 1 University of Nevada 1
San Jose State University 1 Claremont Graduate University 1
3.7 KM studies according to countries
The articles when analyzed to find out the contribution of different countries to KM
research, a very short list was obtained. Only four countries were found to be involved in
publishing the KM research in ISM journal. In this category U.S.A is ahead of all with 44.44%
of the total publication followed by U.K (33.33%) and Canada (16.66%). At the bottom of the
list is India with 5.55% publications; once again a dense contribution to KM publication from the
U.K and U.S.A. The countries who are big giants in research like China, Australia and many
European countries (except UK) are missing from the list. This demonstrates that except a few
countries the countries renowned for research never contributed to KM literature in ISM journal.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1015
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Figure 2: KM studies by Country
3.8 KM studies according to continent
In the selected articles only three continents (See table 9 for details) are represented i.e.,
North America (61.11%), Europe (33.33%) and Asia (5.55%). The too short list indicates that
only a few countries are adding to KM literature belonging to different continents.
Table 9: KM studies by Country (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Country Name Article Count
North America 11
Europe 6
Asia 1
Table 8: KM studies by Country (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Country Name Article Count
U.S.A 8
U.K 6
Canada 3
India 1
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1016
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
3.9 KM studies according to unit of analysis
The selected articles were analyzed for the most common unit of analysis based on
Dwivedi et al. (2011) categorization. The results are drawn in table 10, whose details are as
follow: a significant number of articles i.e., 66.66% used ‗organization‘ as unit of analysis. This
is followed by ‗industry‘ whose weightage is 16.66%, while each of 5.55% of the articles used
‗government‘ and ‗tool/software‘ as unit of analysis. In 5.55% of the articles the unit of analysis
is not clear so they are included in ‗others‘ category. This suggests that KM is still mostly
investigated at organizational level as in organizations the KM impacts are drastic and robust.
Table 10: KM studies according to unit of analysis (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Unit of Analysis Article Count
Organization 12
Industry 3
Tool/Software 1
Government 1
Others 1
3.10 KM studies according to research paradigm
One of the important aspects of a research article is the research paradigm it falls in. To
investigate the different research paradigms used in the KM publications, the selected articles
were examined based on the categorization of Dwivedi et al. (2011). The different research
paradigms defined by Dwivedi et al. (2011) are: Descriptive/Conceptual/Theoretical, Positivism,
Interpretive and Critical. Table 11 has the details of different research paradigms. The results
determined that the KM research is dominated by ‗Conceptual/Descriptive/Theoretical‘ research
paradigm with 72.22% of the publications. Such research paradigm mainly comprises articles
which are based on literature reviews, personal view points or studies that are highly conceptual
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1017
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
in nature (Dwivedi et al. 2011). This is followed by the Positivist and Interpretive research
paradigms as both have equal number of publications i.e., 11.11%. About 5.55% articles‘
research paradigms were not clear, it was difficult to determine in which research paradigm they
fall so these were included in ‗Unknown‘ category. The reason for dominant conceptual
paradigm may be that in this review a fair number of articles came from industry (practitioners)
and the practitioners mostly prefer to write a conceptual paper.
Table 11: KM studies according to Research Paradigm (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Research Paradigm Article Count
Descriptive/Conceptual/Theoretical 13
Positivist 2
Interpretive 2
Unknown 1
3.11 KM studies according to research methodology
Likewise research paradigm this category was also adapted from Dwivedi et al. (2011).
The different research methodologies which were defined by Dwivedi et al. (2011) are:
Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed and Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-analysis. According to the
results of analysis, significant portion of KM publications falls in ‗Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-
analysis‘ category. This category has the highest number of articles published that is 77.77% of
the total publications. While as far as Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed research methods are
concerned each of them have just 5.55% publications. In some of the articles the research
method was unclear so these were included in ‗Unknown‘ category whose weightage is 5.55%.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1018
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Table 12: KM studies according to Research Methodologies (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
Research Methodology Article Count
Conceptual/Theoretical/Meta-analysis 14
Qualitative 1
Quantitative 1
Mixed 1
Unknown 1
3.12 Major Research topics within KM field
Adapted from the Dwivedi et al. (2011) the articles were analyzed for major KM topics.
Dwivedi et al. (2011) in their study identified 6 major topic categories. In this study analysis the
list consists of only 4 categories. The results depict that KM strategy was dominant as far as KM
topics were concerned with 38.88% representation. The 2nd
highest representation was by KM
system 33.33%, followed by KM Processes/Implementation 11.11% and in last KM planning
5.55%. While 11.11% of the articles were short of covering any major KM topic, hence these
were included in ‗others‘ category.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1019
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Table 13: Major research topics in KM field (adapted from Dwivedi et al. 2011)
KM topic/Research issues Frequency
KM Strategy/Policy 7
KM System 6
KM Processes/Implementation 2
KM Planning 1
Others 2
3.13 IT support for KM
Subramani et al. (2003) reviewed KM literature from 1990 to 2002 and highlighted eight
different factors including ―IT support for KM‖. The factor is also of keen interest in our study as
during analysis we come across the fact that a number of articles point towards the KM-IT link.
Our analysis demonstrates that one way or the other majority of the articles have been directed
towards a relationship between KM/KMS and IT/IS. Based on the above arguments this study
proposes two categories:
1) IT supported articles
a. KM and IT.
b. KM and IS.
c. KM technologies.
2) Non IT articles.
The results (as drawn in table 14) suggest that IT supported articles accumulated a huge
portion of the publication. As high as 88.88% of the articles discussed IT related terminologies,
while just 11.11% articles fall in ‗non IT articles‘ category. Further analysis of ‗IT supported
articles‘ illustrate that 44.44% articles fall in KM and IT, while 27.77% fall in KM technologies
and 16.66% fall in KM and IS category (see figure 3).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1020
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Figure 3: IT and Non IT Articles
Table 14: IT supported KM articles (adapted from Subramani et al. 2003)
IT vs Non-IT Articles Frequency
IT supported articles 16
KM and IT 8
KM Technologies 5
KM and IS 3
Non IT articles 2
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1021
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
4. Discussion and Conclusion
In this review reflecting the ISM journal KM literature, the main focus was to provide an
overview of current KM research from different perspectives. This research contributed to not
only the analysis of existing KM literature by revealing trends in KM research, it also
highlighted the key areas covered in the KM field. The analysis included in this study is along a
series of dimensions like duration/era that published significant amount of KM research. Active
authors in the field of KM, their institutes and the universities that dominated KM research have
been subsumed. And last but not least the prevailing research paradigms and major KM topics
are explored.
The concentration of attention behind all the analysis is to identify the gaps in the KM
research and to uncover the lacking areas. In this regard a few important trends are identified.
The first one is related with the KM publication era. In late 1990‘s and early 2000‘s a significant
amount of KM publication took place as this was the time when KM concept was evolved. Since
then the KM publication slowed down but recently (2011) once again KM publication got
momentum and significant amount of KM research was published. This momentum illustrates
that once again organizations are diverting their focuses towards this intellectual capital of
‗knowledge‘. Secondly only a few nations are contributing to KM publications, in our list only
four countries around the globe participated in KM publications. This is a serious issue for the
KM field, as for such a diverse and emerging field the rest of the world has to take steps for
enhancing KM research. Same is the case with research institutes which points out only a few
institutions contributed to KM research. Universities have to pay attention to KM and may make
it an important part of their academic education. Thirdly an important finding is regarding
academic and industry research. Comparing with prior study findings i.e., Avison et al. (2008), in
this study industry contribution to KM research was recorded as 35% which is quite high than
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1022
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Avison et al. (2008) study (12%). Also this is confirmed that academia and industry are still far
apart as a minute proportion of publication (5.55%) came from the joint efforts of academia and
industry. To minimize this gap both sectors should promote a collaborative environment for
research. As far as the research paradigms are concerned the conceptual/theoretical research has
dominated. The reason for dominant conceptual paradigm may be that in this review a fair
number of articles came from industry (practitioners) and the practitioners mostly prefer to write
a conceptual paper also a dense research proportion came from period late 1990‘s, this was the
time when KM field was in emergence state. In research an emergence field is mostly populated
with conceptual/theoretical type of research. Organization was mainly focused as unit of
analysis, not only a single article addressed ―individuals/group‖ as unit of analysis. On the other
hand in major research topics category ‗KM strategy‘ and ‗KMS‘ prevailed suggesting that for
organization focusing KM strategy and building KMS are of vital importance. An important
contribution of this research study is identifying and exploring KM-IT relationship. This
highlights that KM research focused on managing knowledge as an organizational resource, for
which IT plays a vital role in supporting organizational KM.
This research has many theoretical implications and opened a new gateway to future
research. As the trends indicates that recently momentum took place in KM publication. Hence it
suggest that any KM publication will be preferred if it focuses on the lacking areas in KM field
like: 1) KM studies from less developed countries, 2) from industry, 3) Qualitative and
Quantitative research approaches having empirical data 4) taking individuals/group as unit of
analysis and 5) focusing KM processes.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1023
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
It is anticipated that this research will act a useful source in the context of KM research
literature. Further comprehensive and useful insights into the current research gaps have been
provided which may set the future research directions.
5. Limitations of the study
Like any good research this study has a number of limitations. First, the study was
undertaken in a very limited time and the resources available were also very limited. Second the
search query we used include ―knowledge management‖ only in the title of article. There is a
possibility that an article title may be short of ‗knowledge management‘ but still covers
knowledge management topics in the main text. Third, only one journal is selected for KM
review and the sample was too small. A more comprehensive research is needed in order to
overcome the limitations of this study.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1024
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. (2001): ―Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues‖. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-113.
Bourdreau, A. and Couillard, G. (1999): ―Systems Integration and Knowledge Management‖.
Information Systems Management, 16(4), 1-9.
Bowman, B. J. (2002): ―Building Knowledge Management Systems‖. Information Systems
Management, 19(3), 32-40.
Burkhard, R. J. Hill, T. R. and Venkatsubramanyan, S. (2011): ―The Emerging Challenge of
Knowledge Management Ecosystems: A Silicon Valley High Tech Company Signals the
Future‖. Information Systems Management, 28(1), 5-18.
Chen, W. Elnaghi, M. and Hatzakis, T. (2011): ―Investigating Knowledge Management Factors
Affecting Chinese ICT Firms Performance: An Integrated KM Framework‖. Information
Systems Management, 28(1), 19-29.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M. C. (1998): ―Successful knowledge management
projects''. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Drucker, P. (1995): "The Post-Capitalist Executive". Managing in a Time of Great Change,
Penguin, New York.
Dwivedi, Y. K. Venkitachalam, K. Sharif, A. M. Al-Karaghouli, W. and Weerakkody, V. (2011):
―Research Trends in Knowledge Management: Analyzing the Past and Predicting the Future‖.
Information Systems Management, 28(1), 43-56.
Ghosh, B. and Scott, J. E. (2006): ―Effective Knowledge Management Systems for a Clinical
Nursing Setting‖. Information Systems Management, 24(1), 73-84.
Gray, P. (2002): ―Knowledge Management‖. Information Systems Management, 19(1), 89-93.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1025
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Hoven, J. V. D. (2001): ―Information Resource Management: Foundation for Knowledge
Management‖, Information Systems Management, 18(2), 1-4.
Kanter, J. (1999): ―Knowledge Management, Practically Speaking‖. Information Systems
Management, 16(4), 7-15.
Karwowski, W. and Ahram, T. Z. (2009): ―Interactive Management of Human Factors
Knowledge for Human Systems Integration Using Systems Modeling Language‖. Information
Systems Management, 2(3), 262-274.
King, W. R. (1999): ―Integrating Knowledge Management Into IS Strategy‖. Information
Systems Management, 16(4), 1-3.
King, W. R. (2000): ―Playing an Integral Role in Knowledge Management‖. Information
Systems Management, 17(4), 1-3.
King, W. R. (2006): ―IT Strategy and Innovation: Recent Innovations in Knowledge
Management‖. Information Systems Management, 24(1), 91-93.
King, W. R. (2009): ―Text Analytics: Boon to Knowledge Management‖? Information Systems
Management, 26(1), 87-87.
Kocharekar, R. (2001): ―K-Commerce: Knowledge-Based Commerce Architecture with
Convergence of E-Commerce and Knowledge Management‖. Information Systems Management,
18(2), 1-6.
Laleci, G. B. Aluc, G. Dogac, A. Sinaci, A. Kilic, O. and Tuncer, F. (2010): A semantic backend
for content management systems‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(8), 832–843.
Lee, M. R. and Chen, T. T. (2012): ―Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge
management: From 1995 to 2010‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1026
OCTOBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 6
Martensson, M. (2000): "A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool".
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 204-216.
Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2009): ―A knowledge management approach to organizational
competitive advantage: Evidence from the food sector‖. European Management Journal, 27,
129-141.
Misra, D. C. Hariharan, R. and Khaneja, M. (2003): ―E-Knowledge Management Framework for
Government Organizations‖. Information Systems Management, 20(2), 38-48.
Sharif, A. M. and Al-Karaghouli, W. (2011): ―From the Special Issue Editors: Exploring the
Frontiers of Knowledge Management Transfer in the Public and Private Sector‖. Information
Systems Management, 28(1), 2-4.
Sharp, D. (2003): ―Knowledge Management Today: Challenges and Opportunities‖. Information
Systems Management, 20(2), 32-37.
Sousa, C. A. A. and Hendriks, P. H. J. (2006). ―The diving bell and the butter-fly—the need for
grounded theory in developing a knowledge-based view of organizations‖. Organizational
Research Methods, 9, 315.
Subramani, M. Nerur, S. P. and Mahapatra, R. (2003). ―Examining The Intellectual Structure of
Knowledge Management, 1990–2002 – An Author Co-citation Analysis, Management
Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, 2003, p. 23.
Vail, E. F. (1999): ―Knowledge Mapping: Getting Started with Knowledge Management‖.
Information Systems Management, 16(4), 1-8.
Xu, Y. and Bernard, A. (2011): ―Quantifying the value of knowledge within the context of
product development‖. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(1), 166-175.