Abstract
As shown earlier, a KM strategy describing the strategic intent of a KM initiative has to be implemented with the help of organizational instruments. This section is devoted to the organizational design of a KM initiative. Figure B-22 proposes a model of the tasks and flows in knowledge management. The model builds on the concepts and theories depicted in section 4.1.1 - “From organizational learning to knowledge management” on page 22. In particular concepts and approaches from the following research fields were integrated within the model.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
See Maier/Klosa 1999c and chapter 7-“Systems” on page 273; see also e.g., Ruggles 1997, 5ff and 77ff, Borghoff/Pareschi 1998, especially 5ff.
The hierarchy is also called the line organization, structuring the organization according to e.g., functions, regions, products or customers, with its extension to include line and staff positions, see Kieser/Kubicek 1992, 67ff.
For a brief summary see e.g., Frese 1992, 1681, also Rehäuser/Krcmar 1996, 26.
There is a lot of literature on the matrix organization. The approach was developed in the 70s and was a popular approach receiving a lot of attention in the organization science literature in the 80s and early 90s, see e.g., Galbraith 1971, Reber/Strehl 1988, Scholz 1992, Schreyögg 1999, 176ff.
See e.g., Quinn 1992, 113ff, Nonaka 1994, 32f, Rehäuser/Krcmar 1996, 26ff, North 1998, 79ff, Schreyögg 1999, 194ff and 254ff.
Examples can be found in Baubin/Wirtz 1996, Probst et al. 1998, Earl/Scott 1999, Bach 1999, 67.
See e.g., Davenport/Prusak 1998, Guns 1998, Earl/Scott 1999, Bontis 2001.
See also Apostolou/Mentzas 1998, 13, Guns 1998, 316ff, Ezingeard et al. 2000, 811, Bontis 2001, 31ff, McKeen/Staples 2003, 32ff
See e.g., APQC 1996, 60f, Baubin/Wirtz 1996, 143, Probst et al. 1998, 362, Ruggles 1998, 86.
See Wenger 2000, 220; see also the community roles distinguished above.
See e.g., Glazer 1999, 177ff for a model to measure the knowing subject, the knower.
See APQC 1996, 58; see also section 10.1.1-“APQC” on page 439.
See APQC 1996, 58; see also section 10.1.1-“APQC” on page 439.
See e.g., Staehle 1991, 242ff, Wiswede 1991, 166f, Wiswede 1992, 738.
See Probst/Raub 1998; see also section 5.1-“Strategy and knowledge management” on page 93.
See Bartölke 1992, 2385ff and the literature cited there, other approaches are e.g., job enlargement, job rotation, job enrichment.
Brown/ Duguid 1991, Lave 1991, Lave/Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998a, McDermott 1999b, 1999c, Allee 2000, Nickols 2000, Storck/Hill 2000, Wenger/Snyder 2000, Henschel 2001, Lesser/Everest 2001.
Armstrong/ Hagel 1995, 131.
Amidon 1998, 51ff, 1999, 83ff.
Charan 1991, Krackhardt/Hanson 1993, Rehäuser/Krcmar 1996, 27.
Borowsky 2000, Botkin 2000, 39ff and 93ff, North et al. 2000.
Storck/ Hill 2000.
Kollock/ Smith 1999.
Wellman/ Gulia 1999, 169ff.
Hildreth et al. 2000, 31ff.
McLure Wasko/Faraj 2000.
Armstrong/ Hagel 1996, Cothrel/Williams 1999, Kollock 1999, 220ff.
Rheingold 1994, Armstrong/Hagel 1995, Donath 1999, Wellman/Gulia 1999, Hummel/Lechner 2001; for an example of a virtual community that is well supported with ICT see Beinhauer et al. 1999.
Schubert 1999, 32ff.
Multi-user dungeons or dimensions or domains (MUDs) are play and conversation spaces in the Internet that offer synchronous modes of communication and are based on fantasy role games, see Götzenbrucker/Löger 1999, 3.
See Lave/Wenger 1991, 91ff, Armstrong/Hagel 1995, 131. For a list of examples of virtual communities that gives an overview of the heterogeneity of this concept see Schubert 1999, 207ff.
See e.g., Ferrán-Urdaneta 1999, 128 and the sociological theories as cited there; see also Smith/Kollock 1999, Wenger/Snyder 2000, 141ff.
See also Kollock 1999 for a more thorough discussion of the economics of virtual communities.
See e.g., Allee 2000, 8, North et al. 2000, 52f, Storck/Hill 2000, Wenger/Snyder 2000, 140f, Lesser/Everest 2001, 38
See e.g., Storck/Hill 2000; for guidelines how to foster communities see also McDermott 1999b, 1999c, Cothrel/Williams 1999, 56ff.
In an empirical study of 15 on-line Intranet, Extranet and Internet communities, about two thirds of the respondents responsible for managing or coordinating the community believed that the ongoing effort to maintain the community had increased compared to the initial effort to set up the community (see Cothrel/Williams 1999, 58).
See e.g., Chase 1997b, Güldenberg 1997, Davenport/Prusak 1998, Probst et al. 1998, Sveiby 1997, 1998, Bach et al. 1999, 267ff, McCampbell et al. 1999, 175ff, Antoni/Sommerlatte 2001, Eppler/Sukowski 2001, Mertins et al. 2001, Davenport/Probst 2002, Riempp 2004, 253ff, Jennex 2005, see also section 10.2-“Case studies” on page 447.
Integration, validation, contextualization and activation activities have been found in case studies by Eppler (2003, 82ff). Examples are listed in section 7.2.5-“Quality of contents” on page 299.
See section 7.2.1-“Types of contents” on page 282, Maier/Schmidt 2007.
Wiig 1988, 104ff, Albrecht 1993, 86ff, Schüppel 1996, O’Dell/Grayson 1997, 11, Ruggles 1997, 5ff and 77ff, Allweyer 1998, 39f, Choo 1998, 18ff and 105ff, Davenport/Prusak 1998, 115ff, Mentzas/Apostolou 1998, 19.3, Probst et al. 1998, Rey et al. 1998, 31f, Tuomi 1999, 341ff, Bhatt 2000, 17ff, Nissen et al. 2000, Pawlowsky 2000, 115ff, Roehl 2000, 154ff, Alavi/Leidner 2001, 115ff, Bhatt 2001, 71ff, Mertins et al. 2001a, 3f; see also section 4.1.4-“Definition” on page 52.
Examples are Davenport et al. 1996, Allweyer 1998, Warnecke et al. 1998, Föcker et al. 1999, Schreiber et al. 1999, Warschat et al. 1999, Weggemann 1999, 223ff, Bach 2000, Merali 2000, Nissen et al. 2000, Hoffmann et al. 2001, Abecker et al. 2002, Dämmig et al. 2002, Remus 2002, Maier/Remus 2001, 2002, 2003, Strohmaier 2003.
This typology is based on Porter’s ideas of the value chain and was primarily developed by the American Productivity and Quality Center, URL: http://www.apqc.org/free/framework.cfm and http://globalbestpractices.com/ (see also Abecker et al. 2002, 8, Heisig 2002, 62).
.E.g., Eppler et al. 1999, Goesmann 2002, 61ff, Heisig 2002, 56, Nägele/Schreiner 2002, 29, Remus 2002, 108ff).
There is no agreement in the literature concerning the definition of knowledge process. For example, Allweyer (1998, 44) uses the term “knowledge process” to denote both, knowledge-intensive business processes as well as “specific” knowledge processes the main aim of which is to process knowledge. Bach (1999, 65) uses the term “knowledge management process” for separate processes to support knowledge management, e.g., knowledge distribution or development of knowledge. Many authors also do not distinguish between the terms knowledge process, knowledge task, knowledge function or knowledge activity (see also section 4.1.4-“Definition” on page 52).
This figure is based on Remus 2002, 121.
See the detailed comparison provided by Remus 2002.
See Maier/Remus 2002, Remus 2002.
Source: Remus 2002, 205.
A previous version of this section was presented in Maier/Remus 2003.
Source: Maier/Remus 2003, 17
Source: Maier/Remus 2003, 19
See Brown 1998, 7ff for an overview of definitions and a classification of approaches.
See also Roehl 2000, 253ff for a discussion of implicit assumptions of interventions into an organization’s knowledge organization.
The interested reader will find a host of literature on organizational culture. Examples are Schein 1984, Hofstede et al. 1990, Drumm 1991, Sackmann 1992, Schreyögg 1992, Schein 1996, Brown 1998, Frey 2000, Rosenstiel 2000 and the literature cited there
See also Döring-Katerkamp 2002 who performed an empirical study on the use of incentives to improve motivation to participate in KM.
The interested reader should consult literature in the realm of systemic organizational interventions. Examples are Königswieser/Exner 1999, for an overview of modern therapeutic methods to guide change processes in organizations e.g., Buchinger 1997, Scala/Grossmann 1997, for supervision, e.g., Pühl 1992, for the use of processes in large groups for organizational change processes, e.g., Königswieser/Keil 2000.
In German: “Methode des Geschäftsprozessorientierten Wissensmanagements” (GPOWM, Heisig 2002)
The term organizational memory is used here in the sense of organizational memory information system to cover all explicit knowledge that is accessible with the help of an information and communication system (Hinkelmann et al. 2002, 67).
The concepts of Knowledge-MEMO are still under construction and will be presented in Schauer 2004. However, some preliminary results target e.g., the integration of project management and business planning (Fraunholz/Schauer 2003), an object-oriented meta-model for KMS architectures (Frank 1999) or, more specific, enterprisewide project memory and management systems (Frank et al. 2001).
See Wargitsch 1998 for the system WorkBrain, Goesmann 2002, 43ff and the literature cited there, see also Goesmann 2002, 166ff for the system WoMIS.
See e.g., Abecker et al. 2002, Goesmann 2002, 39ff, Remus 2002, 36ff and 216ff for a more detailed account of some of the approaches and modeling methods mentioned here.
For a detailed description of ARIS see Scheer 2001.
Source: Scheer 1992, 22, Scheer 1998, 37.
Figure B-31 to Figure B-33 show simplified portions of the models that were developed in the course of the EU project “KnowCom-Knowledge and Co-operation-Based Engineering for Die and Mould Making Small and Medium Enterprises” (KnowCom 2003).
Blackler 1995, Spender 1996a.
For a recent overview of activity theory e.g., Chaiklin et al. 1999.
The figure is based on Engeström 1987, Engeström 1993, 68, Blackler 1995, 1037, Engeström et al. 1999.
Source: Kuutti 1997.
See section “Hypertext organization.” on page 159; see also Nonaka 1994, 32ff.
See textbooks on knowledge-based systems or logic, with an emphasis on knowledge management e.g., Karagiannis/Telesko 2001, 53ff).
See e.g., Eppler 2003a.
See URL: http://www.ontoprise.de/, Staab et al. 2001, Staab 2002.
Daconta et al. 2003, 148.
Neches et al. 1991, 40, cited from Zelewski 2002, 6.
The figure is based on Frielitz et al. 2002, 545.
Source: Eppler 2003a, 196
Source: Eppler 2003a, 195
This figure is based on Pappi 1987a, 26. Areas interesting for knowledge management are highlighted.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Organization. In: Knowledge Management Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71408-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71408-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71407-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71408-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)