Concepts of Knowledge Management, Describing Peter Senge Fifth Discipline, and Technologies for KM

1. 1
Name: Uyoyo Edosio
Knowledge Management Concept
ABSTRACT
According to Peter Drucker, knowledge has become a major economic resource and a key
source/drive of competitive advantage. Hence, it is important for organizations to
understand the key concepts of knowledge and how to manage their knowledge assets
effectively.
This paper seeks to explain the key fundamentals in knowledge management. The paper is
divided into three Chapters as follows:
Chapter One: This chapter presents a detailed description of knowledge management, the
underlying concepts, differences between Knowledge management and Information
management, barriers associated with knowledge management implementation.
Finally, this chapter illustrates successful implementation of Knowledge Management
using KMPG International as a case study and a failed knowledge management
implementation using Calibro Ltd as a case study.
Chapter Two: This chapter discusses the Five Disciplines of organizational learning
proposed by Peter Senge, strategies of becoming a learning organizations, differences
between learning organization and traditional organization and the drivers of a learning
organization.
Chapter Three: Describes the role technology plays in knowledge management. Also we
illustrated this role using a case study of a Knova Knowledge Management Tool.
This report contains appendices for further illustration of some key concepts

2. 2
UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD
School:
Engineering and informatics
Department/Division:
ITM
Module Tutor/Supervisor:
Dr. Fatima Mahiedinna
Module Number:
ENG4065M
Module Name:
Knowledge Management and Business
Intelligencw`
Title of Essay Question:
Please provide the whole question:
Knowledge Management
Coursework
Your UB Number:
13021305
Date of Submission:
31-03-2014
Mode of Study (on site/distance Learner:
On site
Word count (not including bibliography
and appendices):
5,556

3. 3
Contents
1 Chapter one....................................................................................................................................................4
1.1 What is Knowledge Management?.........................................................................................................4
1.2 Key Concepts in KM .............................................................................................................................4
1.3 Difference between Information Management and Knowledge Management...........................................5
1.4 Benefits of KM to an Organization.........................................................................................................5
1.5 Culture– A Barrier Implementing KM....................................................................................................6
1.6 Case Study I: Successful Knowledge Management in KPMG .................................................................6
1.6.1 KPMG Objective for Implementing KM........................................................................................6
1.6.2 How did KPMG Implement the KM system? .................................................................................6
1.6.3 Features of K-World......................................................................................................................7
1.6.4 Key Success factors in KMPG “K-World” Project .........................................................................7
1.7 Case Study II: Failed KM initiative in Calibro Company ........................................................................7
1.7.1 How KM was in Calibro? ..............................................................................................................7
1.7.2 The End of the BB project .............................................................................................................7
1.7.3 Failure Factors in Calibro ..............................................................................................................7
2 Chapter Two..................................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Five Disciplines for Organisational Learning..........................................................................................8
2.2 The learning organization.......................................................................................................................9
2.3 Drivers for Implementing Learning Organization ...................................................................................9
2.4 Learning organization Vs Traditional Organization .............................................................................. 10
2.5 Top Strategies to Becoming a Learning Organization ........................................................................... 10
3 Chapter Three.............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Roles of IT in Knowledge Management ............................................................................................... 11
3.2 Tools for KM – KNOVA Knowledge Management Tool...................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Overview of Knova ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Features of Knova ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Limitations of Knova................................................................................................................... 12
4 References .................................................................................................................................................. 12
5 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix 1 –Screenshot of KPMG KM Portal.................................................................................................. 14
Appendix 2 – Architecture of Knova Knowledge Management ......................................................................... 14

4. 4
1 Chapter one
1.1 What is Knowledge Management?
Currently there is no single definition for Knowledge
Management (KM). Researchers define the term
based on different concepts. Some definitions of KM
are as follows:
 In terms of innovation- (McAdam, 2000) defines
Knowledge Management as the process of
adapting existing knowledge in order to solve
current business challenges and create new
solutions by studying patterns in existing
knowledge.
 (Rosenthal-Sabroux & Grundstein, 2008) Defines
Knowledge Management as activities and process
geared towards creation and utilization of
knowledge in an organization. This definition
tends to elude the importance of human factor in
knowledge Management (as knowledge is a result
of aprior and prior activities as well as
retrospective speculations to provide subjective
interpretations of such actions (Nonaka,
Umemoto, & Senoo, 1996).
 Some researchers believe knowledge management
is not just about processes, but is greatly hinged
on human activities. These researchers define
knowledge management is based on human
activities, processes, social interactions,
experiences and cognitive interpretation of
information (Holsapple, 2005).
The above definitions present diverse concepts of
defining Knowledge Management, however all this
definition commonly highlight the need to
effectively utilize or harness knowledge, in a
manner that will provide insight, proffer
solutions based on existing knowledge. In
conclusion knowledge management can be simple
defined as the processes of utilizing both past and
current knowledge, in a manner that is
understandable to end user.
However for one to fully have deeper
understanding of the term knowledge management it
is key must first understand what is meant by the
word “knowledge”.
1.2 Key Concepts in KM
In order to distinguish between knowledge
management and information management, one must
understand the relationship between data; information
and knowledge (Refer to Figure 1 presents a
graphical illustration of the difference between these
terms)
Figure 1: Relationship between data, information,
knowledge and wisdom (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002)
 Data: Data can be defined as mere, unformatted or
raw facts. This could in inform of measurements,
statistics, numbers or alphabets (Alavi & Leidner,
2001). Data in itself is usually meaningless as it
has no meaning without being interpreted
(Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002).
Examples of data include “101010”, “CUO”,
“13031305”.
 Information: Information can be simply defined as
processed data. It is inference gained from data
(Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002). Information can
also be defined as a set of related data, which can
be further interpreted and put into relevant context
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
 Knowledge: According to (Nonaka, Umemoto, &
Senoo, 1996) knowledge can be defined as a belief
which is held to be justifiable and true. Some
authors define knowledge as the application of
information (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002).

5. 5
Table 1: Difference between KM and IM
1.3 Difference between Information
Management and Knowledge
Management
IM and KM have similar methodologies processes,
and paradigms, and technologies, which makes it
very difficult to distinguish between them. Even the
definition of knowledge Management and
Information Management appear very similar.
IM and KM involves the capturing and managing
information from either a single or multiple sources
and disseminating this information to an audience.
Sources of information are either human sources,
electronic sources or paper sources.
However, “Knowledge Creation” is a unique
feature in the knowledge management frame work
which distinguishes IM from KM (Ocholla, 2011).
Knowledge management goes beyond IM in the
sense that both tacit and external knowledge are
created and managed in KM. KM does not only
involve mere information sharing and analysis, but it
is a mixture of experiences, skills, intangible tacit
knowledge, together with information, in such a
manner that can guide decision making process
(Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002).
. (KNOCO, 2014).Table 1 above presents the
major differences between KM and IM.
1.4 Benefits of KM to an Organization
Knowledge management can add value to an
organization in the following ways:
A. Faster Decision Making: KM helps to improve
the effectiveness of an organization by reducing
decision making time and improving quality of
decisions made (Verma, 2012). According
(Verma, 2012) to KM and KM technologies help
provide:
 Lesser time will be spent gathering knowledge
resource (this is because KM provides a medium
for storing knowledge resources), and more time
can be invested in creation and dissemination of
knowledge.
B. Competitive advantage: Due to the high
competition in the business environment, many
organizations are harnessing their knowledge
assets to provide unique competitive advantages
(Gold et al., 2002). Companies are constantly
capturing, analyzing, disseminating knowledge
resources to guide their decision making process
(Wen, 2009).
 By adapting such insights and making more
informed decision faster, organizations can
outwit their competitor and provide better
quality service to their customers
C. Innovation: The unique organizational
knowledge derived from managing and
analyzing knowledge resources can help
organization deliver innovative products and
services to the customers. This will help foster:
 More informed and quality decision making
 Better customer satisfaction (Birasnav, 2013)
S/N KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT(KM) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM)
1
The KM process includes “Knowledge creation” as part
of the KM framework. According to (Nonaka,
Umemoto, & Senoo, 1996) knowledge is created
through interactions amongst different individuals and
different types of knowledge
According to (Choo, 1999), IM process does not
include knowledge creation. It is limited to
capturing, processing preserving, storage and
distribution of information. (Choo, 1999)
2
KM is more concerned about managing experiences,
know-how, skills to create a learning cycle. The
knowledge gained can be used to make predictions
(Ocholla, 2011)
IM is focused on managing of information about a
particular context, and storage of information in
repositories for easy retrieval and distribution.
(KNOCO, 2014)
3
KM involves managing information (inform explicit
knowledge),managing process and managing people,
creation of innovation and managing of intellectual
assets (KNOCO, 2014)
Information management is involves managing
information only (this is includes all process from
capturing to dissemination of information)
(Ocholla, 2011) (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002)
Table 1: Difference between Knowledge Management and Information Management

6. 6
 Eventually improving sales and revenue
generated from that good/service. (Birasnav,
2013)
1.5 Culture– A Barrier Implementing KM
Figure 2: Barriers to KM implementation in an
organization (Ruggles, 1998)
In 1997 Ernest and Young carried out a survey on
413 organizations in USA and Europe (Ruggles,
1998).
The aim of the study was to study how knowledge
was managed with those organizations. Of these
organizations
- 54% responded that Culture is one of the greatest
difficulty in knowledge management and transfer
with their organizations.
- 32% responded that Lack of management of top
management commitment to KM initiative is a
barrier to KM in an organization.
- 30% responded that lack of shared KM strategy
is a major barrier to KM in organizations.
Indeed, organizational culture plays a big role in
influencing knowledge management (Ruggles, 1998).
Culture influences the interpretations of knowledge
and it also influences the way knowledge is shared
within the organization (Biygautane & Al-Yahya,
2011).
For instance: in an organization where there is a
distrust culture, employees may hoard knowledge
from one another (in a bid to protect their jobs). Such
employees may see each other as competitors rather
than a team. Therefore knowledge management in
such an organization would not be successful
(Biygautane & Al-Yahya, 2011).
On the contrary in an organization with high trust
culture, team work employees find it much easier to
disseminate knowledge amongst themselves (This
could be through informal chats, knowledge sharing
sessions, using IT collaboration tools)
Some authors argue that when knowledge is seen
as product of interaction, and not an object, the
effect of culture in will be understood better (Long,
1997). A good organization culture creates a platform
for social interactions amongst employees; this can
create knowledge sharing in an organization (Long,
1997).
1.6 Case Study I: Successful Knowledge
Management in KPMG
KPMG is a global organization that provides
Audit, Tax and Advisory services to its clients.
The company comprises of over 138,000
professionals working in 150 countries (Armacost,
2011). Refer to Appendix 1for screenshot of KMPG
portal.
1.6.1 KPMG Objective for Implementing KM
- The aim of KPMG implementing a KM was to
leverage on existing knowledge and create new
knowledge, which will add value to their clients,
staff and to the capital market (Armacost, 2011).
- They also want to harness the knowledge of their
staff, with variety of experience in order to derive
unique insight that will give them competitive
advantages in the market (Armacost, 2011).
1.6.2 How did KPMG Implement the KM system?
1. Creation of KM team: In 2010 KPMG
appointed a Global Head of Knowledge and
Steering. This function was in charge of
selecting a team of professionals that will be part
of the KM development team. The Global head
and the assigned team agreed and deliberated on
the strategy and tools necessary (Armacost,
2011).
2. Developed a KM strategy: The KM team
designed a strategy aimed at building a high
quality, robust content management system that
will ensure employees access right knowledge at
the right time to support clients. The second
strategy was to implement a KM tool that will
foster collaboration amongst staff and encourage
team learning across all KPMG offices located
globally (Armacost, 2011).
3. Technology: After in-depth research the
Knowledge and Steering Committee decided to
adopt the use of a portal called “K-world”
utilising Microsoft SharePoint as the major
technology to help support their agreed strategy.
4. After deployment of the K-word portal there was
an active awareness, trainings, and incentive
system to encourage KPMG staff share
knowledge and exchange content on the
platform.

7. 7
1.6.3 Features of K-World
According to (Armacost, 2011) the feature of K-
World includes:
 Unified Access Point to KPMG resources globally.
 Single Knowledge repository for all KPMG
divisions.
 Integration of market trends and news relevant
knowledge sourced from the web.
 In 2011 K-World‟s functionality was further
developed to include:
a. a search engine,
b. micro blogging tool,
c. forums, chats and list of all clients related jobs
present and ongoing globally.
 KPMG staff can upload and share documents that
relate to a particular client.
1.6.4 Key Success factors in KMPG “K-World”
Project
 KPMG KM was driven and supported by top
management, and was supervised by line managers
globally.
 There was a clear strategy for implementing KM
within the organization.
 There was a well defined business requirement
before adopting technology. In contrast, most
companies that adopt technology that is irrelevant
to their business.
 KPMG advertised and publicised the portal.
 They also implemented strategies that foster
culture change and acceptance of the systems.
1.7 Case Study II: Failed KM initiative in
Calibro Company
Calibro is a pharmaceutical company, with its head
office located in Switzerland. The company has about
1000 researcher staff located globally.
The main aim of implementing KM in Calibro was to
create a single environment where staff across the
globe can collaborate and share knowledge on new
drug research (Akhavan et al., 2005).
The plan was to implement:
- The Knowledge Store: To store documents,
relating to ongoing research.
- E-room: it was a forum aimed at facilitating group
discussions amongst researchers. .
This project was called Baleine Bleue (Project
BB).
1.7.1 How KM was in Calibro?
1. Due to cost restriction the management of
Calibro delegated only two staff to Project BB
initiative. It was to be championed by a new
recruit and an intern.
2. Noting the need lack of skill of the team BB, the
management decided to send the two staff for
trainings and classes (Akhavan et al., 2005).
3. Based in their discussion from just one
researcher (out of 1000 researchers) the team
designed an intranet website with a discussion
forum (e-room) and intranet storage (knowledge
store).
4. After designing the portal. email were sent to
persuade research staff in other locations to
participate in the planning of the knowledge
store and e-rooms.
1.7.2 The End of the BB project
After nine months of design and implementation the
BB team was disappointed to find the following:
- There were no discussions on the KM intranet
staff.
- Some staff felt that the initiative was suspicious,
therefore they refused to utilise the KM portal,
- A lot of researchers refused to share knowledge,
stating lack of time and work pressure as excuses.
The project was eventually abandoned (Akhavan et
al., 2005).
1.7.3 Failure Factors in Calibro
Figure 3: Failure Factors for KM implementation in
Calibro
Figure 3 illustrates the major factors responsible for
failure of KM in Calibro:
The major failure factors of knowledge management
system implementation are summarized below:
- Unfamiliarity of senior management with KM
dimensions and requirement.
- No support and commitment from senior
management.
- Selecting inexperienced KM team,

8. 8
- Poor organisational culture,
- No dedicated budget for Project BB,
- Staff where resistant to change.
2 Chapter Two
2.1 Five Disciplines for Organisational
Learning
According to (Senge, 1990) there are five models
which can be used to understand the underlying and
interconnected themes that are required to build a
learning organization. Senge refers to these models as
“discipline”. The term discipline was deliberate as it
requires a tenacious and enlighten leader to maintain
these process. The disciplines are as follows:
 Systems Thinking- Deals with the ability to
examine the underlying interrelationships
between systems. The fifth discipline stresses the
fact that a system is not merely the sum of its
parts, but a system is determined by the
interaction of its parts (Senge, 1990). It, allows
people understand interdependency, interactions
and change in a system (rather than viewing a
system as a linear series of cause and effect). By
so doing, People/teams learn to deal more
effectively with the forces that form the
consequences of our actions (Senge, 1990).
System thinking also stresses the need for a
paradigm shift from isolated systems to
interconnected whole system.
Systemic thinking is a core discipline, as it is the
discipline that unifies and integrates the others,
to create a systematic body of theory and
practice.
Peter Senge advocates that organization/ Leaders
use 'Systems Thinking Maps' in analyzing
events, challenges and events and causes/courses
of action- in order to identify the best
solutions/solutions (The Change Forum, 2013).
 Personal Mastery - Begins with an awareness of
the need for continuous learning throughout
one‟s lifetime. It involves a commitment/ strives
to become a better person. It is a disciplines that
stresses the need be realistic, persistent and focus
in achieving personal visions. Senge further
states that vision should be viewed more as a
personal vocation than a vague idea/ “nice to
have” (Senge, 1990).
Organizations can only learn if the
employees are dedicated to learning.
Personal mastery is not a skill or an
achievement, but it is a process/ a, which
continues throughout one‟s life time. This
discipline deals with the need for self awareness-
Senge stress the fact that personal mastery
transcends skills or competence, spiritual
opening and spiritual growth.
 Mental Models - Mental Models are
combination of assumptions, deep rooted beliefs,
pictures/images that influence and dictates the
thought process and the actions of an individual.
It also involves the act of participating in
„learningful‟ conversations where people can
expose their perspective of thinking in order to
influence other people (Senge, 1990).
This process begins with an introspective review
of one‟s life. It is an individual‟s subjective
understanding of the world. Senge states that
focusing on openness can bring about real
change. In addition serious discipline is required
for one to change his mental model (Senge,
1990).
If an organization is to develop a mental model,
there will be need for people to learn to adopt
new orientations. It entails encouraging
openness, division of labor and dismissing
internal politics.
 Building Shared Visions – This discipline
entails establishing a singular shared vision
within an organization. People learn to be
committed to organizations or groups where
there is a mutually upheld vision. Where there is
a genuine vision, people strive to achieve this
vision willingly as opposed to been told what to
do (Senge, 1990).
Vision cannot be enforced on individuals; this is
because employee have personal visions, which
may be conflicting with an organizations vision.
Many leaders make the mistake of not translating
their personal vision to shared organizational
learning. Visions can spread through a process of
reinforcement. For instance where people
constantly discuss a vision there will be clarity;
in turn clarity of vision creates an enthusiasm to
commit to the vision (Senge, 1990).
The main question to ask when building a shared
vision is „What do we seek to create in a team?‟
This should be communicated early, so that
members of the team understand the vision
which you seek to create.

9. 9
 Team Learning – Team learning involves the
process of building and enhancing the capacity
of a team in order to achieve their shared vision.
This process commences when teams think
together by; sharing their previous experiences,
skills, and knowledge. By so doing team
members learn to build reflective, analytical,
discussion and inquiry skills (Senge, 1990). This
involves team dialogue, vertical communication.
This discipline builds on both personal
mastery and shared vision; in addition it stresses
the need for team work /collaboration. Senge
states that team learning is a symbiotic
relationship between the organizations and
employees, such that the organization attains its
organizational goal, while the employees can
grow and develop their skills. Dialogue is very
important to create a common insight across a
team (Senge, 1990).
2.2 The learning organization
The term learning organization was first used in the
1980s, referring to businesses that utilized learning to
increase growth and gain competitive advantage. Ten
years later the term become very popular with the
publication of (Senge, 1990).
According to (Senge, 1990) the learning organization
is one where:
- people consistently improve their capacity in
order to achieve their desired results,
- Creative and innovative thinking is encouraged
and natured,
- People consciously and consistently engage in
learning,
- People collectively learn to see the bigger
picture,( rather than have an isolated vision
Also (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) defines a
learning organization is an organization where people
constantly strive to achieve shared goals. A learning
organization is one which encourages both individual
and team learning in order to foster sustainable
development.
A Learning organization is one which encourages
continual organizational regeneration/renewal by
creating a set of core processes that increase
propensity to learn, change and adapt (Jamali,
Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006)
From these definitions, one can observe that the
major rationale behind the concept of learning
organizations is that an organization and its members
can adapt and excel in a rapidly changing
environment (through learning).
According to Senge, true learning is the core of every
human and organization. Therefore it‟s not enough
for a „learning organization “to merely survive
(“Survival learning”), but adapting is more important
(“adaptive learning”). Furthermore adaptive learning
must be combined with “generative learning”;
learning to improve our capacity to innovate/create.
2.3 Drivers for Implementing
Organizational Learning
Figure 4: Drivers for Organizational learning (McAdam,
2000)
Information Technology
Some researchers believe that information technology
is a major drive for organizations. According to
(O'Keeffe, 2006) 70% of management staff identifies
information technology as a major factor influencing
competitive advantage.
Many organizations and Government have invested
huge amount of money in technological tools that aid
knowledge management. A learning organization
therefore enquires workforce that can skillfully
manipulate technological tools (such as knowledge
portals) and utilizethem, in learning. Technology
provides a platform which facilitates easy storage,
retrieval, dissemination and analysis of knowledge.
This is crucial in a learning organization as a staff
can leverage this knowledge to develop personal
mastery.
Competiveness
According to (Senge, 1990) the rate at which any
organization learns may eventually become a source
of continuous competitive advantage. To produce the
necessary competitiveness an organization has to
learn from previous and existing knowledge, and in
turn make effective decisions as to what actions to
take (Lea et al., 2013) (The Public Service Learning

10. 10
Policy Directorate Canada Public Service Agency,
2007).
Knowledge workers
The rapid change of technology has fostered similar
rapid creation of new knowledge. Knowledge can be
accessed over social media, online forums, structured
Customer Realtionship Management(CRM) software.
Knowledge workers need to constantly learn from
such knowledge in order to develop innovative ways
to solve issues in an ever changing environment (Lea
et al., 2013).
2.4 Learning organization Vs Traditional Organization
The table below illustrates and explains the difference between a learning organization and
2.5 Top Strategies to Becoming a Learning Organization
- Setting a good tone at the top (Gaining
support at top level management): Many
organizations are re-orientating senior
management to support learning. In fact some
organizations have created a function/position
where top level staff responsible for
championing learning and knowledge
management. This helps in ensuring that the
learning culture is cascaded all through the
organizational hierarchy (Marquardt, 1996).
- Creating Dedicated Learning areas and good
learning climate: Some organizations have
setup special designated areas for staff
interaction, studying, reflecting. This can help
staff develop a mental model and personal
mastery in their fields. This will aid continuous
learning in the organisation (Marquardt, 1996).
- Policy Reengineering/structuring: Many
organisations are restructuring their policies
around learning. By minimizing barriers and
bottle necks that inhibit knowledge flow around
the organization (Marquardt, 1996).
- Reward, Recognition and incentives: Many
organisations are adopting the strategies of
rewarding individuals and teams that have
displayed commitment to learning, innovation,
personal mastery, teamwork, and knowledge
sharing.(Marquardt, 1996)
- Conferences/trainings and workshops: Many
organizations hold special workshops and
conferences where knowledge is shared amongst
employees, there is also an opportunity to brain
Dimension Learning Organizations Traditional Organizations Ref
Organizational
Direction
Insight and vision are commonly shared across all
organizational levels and the major aim of
managers is to ensure the existence of a vision
Insight and vision are dictated by
the supreme managers only.
(Purhaghshenas
& Esmatnia,
2012)
Idea/ Vision
Formulation
Implementing and forming ideas and innovative is
done in all organizational levels.
Only the Supreme manager for
deciding what to be done. The
members of the organizations a
merely actors.
(Purhaghshenas
& Esmatnia,
2012)
Thinking
Perspective
Systemic thinking: Members in learning
organization think from a systemic perspective
(the bigger picture) on how their actions influence
the organization as a whole
There is no sense of ownership,
people think from isolated point
of view (they just want to
accomplish their task)
(Senge, 1990)
Group learning
/communication
Group learning and discussion is encouraged to
facilitate building and achieving shared vision.
There is hierarchical approach.
Only Top to down
communication
(Purhaghshenas
& Esmatnia,
2012)
Leadership and
motivation
The leader generally fulfills three major roles:
designer, teacher and servant. Also the major aim
of a leader is to create shared vision, encourage
personal mastery, and unify mental models of the
people.
The role of leader is
presenting insight, reward and
punishment and supervision
(Purhaghshenas
& Esmatnia,
2012)
Table 2: Difference between a Learning Organization and a Traditional Organisation

11. 11
storm and develop innovative strategies. When
staff from different department interact and share
- experiences. This helps the organization in team
learning d develop a shared vision.
3 Chapter Three
3.1 Roles of IT in Knowledge
management
Computer-based technology is fundamentally
concerned with digitalization of the process involved
in knowledge management (this includes digitalizing
creation, identification, collection, organization and
dissemination of knowledge) (Milton, Shadbolt,
Cottam, & Hammersley, 1999). According to
(Marwick, 2001) technology in knowledge
Management refers to the automatic extraction of
deep knowledge from knowledge assets stored in a
digital format. Technology does not just assist in
storage but is actively used as a tool for knowledge
creation. Some technological tools provide insight
from analyzing data (Marwick, 2001).
According to (Zack, 1999), there are two ways
technology can provide support for knowledge
management:
1. Codification and personalization: through the
codification approach, structured knowledge
(explicit) can be codified and stored in a
knowledge base. Technology helps to create
single point of access to knowledge, for easy
retrieval and reuse of knowledge (Zack, 1999)
(Marwick, 2001).
2. Personalization approach: Technology creates
a platform for sharing tacit knowledge. For
instance using online forums and discussion
groups people share knowledge (Tacit
knowledge) whilst communicating. Examples of
such IT tools are knowledge expert directories
and video-conferencing tools (Zack, 1999).
Technology infrastructure can further help to support
KM mainly through the 5 stages:
 Acquisition: information can be acquired
from within an organization and its
environment.
 Refining: The technology tool cleanses,
labels, indexes, sorts, re-catigorise
knowledge acquired.
 Storage and Retrieval: Involves creating a
single unified point of access for automated
knowledge retrieval.
 Distribution: The acquires knowledge is
distributed throughout the organization
network
 Presentation: Using business intelligent
algorithms knowledge can be presented
graphically, analytical to provide business
insights.
3.2 Tools for KM – KNOVA
Knowledge Management Tool
3.1.1 Overview of Knova
Knova knowledge management tool is a tool
developed by Aptean Technologies. The tool was
designed for customer service and support
organizations. The major objectives of the software
are to (Knova, 2014):
- Help such companies manage knowledge on
resolution of customer issues (by storing
customer calls, logging issues and resolutions
into a unified knowledge base).
- Keeps track on how the issues have been
resolved (it also allows for updating resolutions
to customer issues).
- Allows for reuse of knowledge in solving
customer issues, and hence improve the
efficiency of organizations using the tool
(Knova, 2014).
3.1.2 Features of Knova
Retrieval, Storage, and Capture of Knowledge

12. 12
- Knova Creates a unified knowledge management
platform that provides singular point of access to
customer related issues, resolutions, customer
details.
- The tool can be integrated with a CRM software,
in order for customer service representative to
analyse customer information and previous
history.
- Knova has an indexing and categorization tool
that categorises customer‟s issues when logged.
This allows for organization of issues.
- Knova ensures that all this functionality are
presented in a single screen to help customer
service representative make decisions, reuse
knowledge and provide faster and quality service
to customers. (Knova, 2014)
Visualization of Knowledge (Analytics)
Knova KM software has the ability to identify
trends and define key support concepts, by
analyzing activities from system users.
Users can see trends, in a graphically format (inform
of pie charts and bar chart).
Some of the trends that can be studied using knova
include:
- Site Traffic – Creates a visual representation of
traffic trends, it highlights areas where customers
have logged the most complaints
- Knowledge Gaps – Graphical illustration of
areas where there is high traffic but low
knowledge/information on how to resolve such
traffic.
- Coverage Summary – Presents a summary of all
traffic, activities , possible red flags and areas of
special attention
- Search Outcomes – Keeps tracks of all searches
queries to the knowledge base (made by both
staff and customers) (Knova, 2014).
3.1.3 Limitations of Knova
- Unlike many modern KM tool, Knova does not
support collaboration, through: discussion
forums, instant messaging, and micro-blogging.
These features are necessary as they create a
platform for social interaction, which can in turn
foster knowledge transfer and conversion of tacit
knowledge to explicit knowledge.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for diagram of Knova
Knowledge Management Architecture.
4 References
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2005).
Exploring Failure-Factors Of Implementing
Knowledge Management Systems In Organizations.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice , 6 (1),
1-10.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review:
Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and
Research Issues. MIS Quarterly , 107-136.
Armacost, R. L. (2011). Knowledge at KPMG.
KPMG International Cooperative.
Birasnav, M. (2013). Knowledge management and
organizational performance in the service industry:
The role of transformational leadership beyond the
effects of transactional leadership. Journal of
Business Research , 1 (1), 1-8.
Biygautane, M., & Al-Yahya, K. (2011, April).
Enablers and Barriers to Effective Knowledge
Management: The Case of Dubai's Public Sector1.
Retrieved March 21, 2014, from Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/1049537/Enablers_and_B
arriers_to_Effective_Knowledge_Management_The_
Case_of_Dubais_Public_Sector1
Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2002). Understanding
knowledge management and information
management: the need for an empirical perspective.
Information research , 1-39.
Castellón, Y., & Gutiérrez, J. A. (2013). Information
Systems: Transforming the Future . 24th Australasian
Conference on Information System (pp. 1-10).
Melbourne: ACIS.
Choo, C. W. (1999). The art of scanning the
environment. Bulletin of the American Society for
information Science and Technology , 25 (3), 21-24.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2002).
Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems , 18 (1), 185-214.
Holsapple, C. W. (2005). The inseparability of
modern knowledge management and computer-based
technology. Journal of Knowledge Management , 42-
52.

13. 13
Jamali, D., Khoury, G., & Sahyoun, H. (2006).
From bueaucratic organizations to learning
organizations, An evolutionary roadmap.
The Learning Organisation , 13 (4), 337-352.
KNOCO. (2014). knowledge-management-FAQ.
Retrieved March 12, 2014, from knoco.co.uk:
http://www.knoco.co.uk/knowledge-management-
FAQ.htm#What%20is%20Knowledge%20Managem
ent?
Lea, P., Barden, S., & Helmer, J. (2013). The New
Learning Organisation How workplace learning and
development is being transformed. Retrieved March
19, 2014, from LineCompany Website:
http://www.line.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/The-New-Learning-
Organisation.pdf
Long, D. D. (1997). Building the Knowledge-Based
Organization:How Culture Drives Knowledge
Behaviors. Ernst & Young Center for Business
Innovation, Working Paper, Boston , 1 (1), 1-29.
Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning
organization} (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill New York.
Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge management
technology. IBM Systems Journal , 40 (4), 814-830.
McAdam, R. (2000). Knowledge management as a
catalyst for innovation within organizations: a
qualitative study. Wiley Periodicals Inc. , 233.
MILTON, N., SHADBOLT, N., COTTAM, H., &
HAMMERSLEY, M. (1999). Towards a knowledge
technology for knowledge Management. Int. J.
Human-Computer Studies , 51 (1), 615}641.
Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). From
Information Processing to Knowledge Creation: a
Paradigm Shift in Business Management. Elsevier
Science , 203-218.
Ocholla, D. N. (2011). Some thoughts on the trends,
issues, challenges and opportunities of information
and knowledge management teaching and research in
South Africa. Mousaion , 29 (2), 23-40.
O'Keeffe, T. (2006). Towards Zero Management
Learning organisations (1 ed.). dog ear publishing.
Purhaghshenas, s. H., & esmatnia, m. (2012).
learning organizations. interdisciplinary journal of
contemporary research in business , 4 (7), 243-249.
Rosenthal-sabroux, c., & grundstein, m. (2008). a
global vision of information management. modlse-
eus, (pp. 55-66). paris.
Ruggles, R. (1998). the state of the notion:
knowledge management in practice. california
management review , 40 (3), 80-90.
Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline:The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization. London:
Century Business/Doubleday.
The Change Forum. (2013). Five Learning
Disciplines... Retrieved March 18, 2014, from
thechangeforum.com:
http://www.thechangeforum.com/Learning_Disciplin
es.htm
The Change Forum. (2013). Five Learning
Disciplines... Retrieved March 18, 2014, from
http://www.thechangeforum.com/Learning_Disciplin
es.htm
The Public Service Learning Policy Directorate
Canada Public Service Agency. (2007). A Primer on
the Learning Organization. The Public Service
Learning Policy Directorate Canada Public Service
Agency.
Verma, A. (2012). Institutionalising Organisational
Effectiveness Through Knowledge Management.
International Journal of Research and Development -
A Management Review , 1 (1), 2319–5479.
Wen, Y.-F. (2009). An effectiveness measurement
model for knowledge management. Elsevier , 22 (5),
363-367.

14. 14
5 Appendices
Appendix 1 –Screenshot of KPMG KM Portal
Appendix 2 – Architecture of Knova Knowledge Management (Knova, 2014)