ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gra tude to my teacher Dr.

Gurwinder Singh who Gave me the opportunity to do this wonderful project on

the topic the current state and future of knowledge management which also

helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new

things I am really thankful to them.

VEERINDER SINGH

BBA 3RD sem

Department of Business Studies

Punjabi University

Guru Kashi Campus

Talwandi Sabo
 ABSTRACT

During the past decade a paradigm shi in the domain of knowledge management (KM) has

emerged out of learning occurred from unfulfilled KM ini a ves. This emerging KM

perspec ve considers it to be more of a human ac vity rather than a technological

endeavour. The no on that knowledge can readily be captured and embedded in machines

to be easily shared has lost its potency. Rather, knowledge crea on and sharing is being

advocated through socialisa on processes like building communi es of prac ce, either real

or virtual. The esoteric, contextual and problema c nature of knowledge is becoming

evident as KM research is advancing into the realms of social construc vism. These

constraints in KM are being recognised, and KM strategies are being devised that consider

these limita ons. Issues like leadership, vision and culture have become central to the

successful KM ini a ves. This paper presents the changing face of KM through a literature

review. It argues that KM is not just another management fad or recycled concept. Rather,

various trends and poten als of KM research are iden fied within the context of expanding

boundaries of this domain to the poten al benefit of the construc on industry.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge, Innova on, and Learning

Knowledge is being recognised as a vital resource and source of compe ve

advantage in today’s dynamic and changing business environment and knowledge

economy (Burton-Jones, 1999). For this reason, research in KM has gained

tremendous pace since its incep on in the last decade. This is evident in enormous

amount of literature exis ng and further growing in the area of KM. A thorough

review of the literature, however, reveals the transforma on that KM has been

through and is s ll undergoing. The struggle of KM researchers and advocates is

evident in their fight to keep it as a separate domain, saving it from a impression of

being regarded as a management fad like TQM (Total Quality Management), BPR

(Business Process Re-engineering), downsizing etc or recycling of concepts like MIS

(Management Informa on System), DSS (Decision Support System), EIS (Execu ve

Informa on system) etc (Wiig, 1997; Spiegler, 2000).

This paper compliments the no on that KM is far from being a management fad

(Malhotra, 2004; Kidd, 2001). It is a paradigm in its own right and occupies a separate

domain of inves ga on, especially in the construc on industry. What is required is a

more comprehensive framework of theory and iden fica on and discovery of various

components of this domain. This paper discusses the current state of KM research

and iden fies further trends and poten al in it for the benefit of the construc on

industry.
2. CURRENT STATE OF KM: FROM PAST TO PRESENT

The quest for obtaining knowledge and effec vely u lising it is not new. This struggle

is as old as the history of human thought (Spiegler, 2000). Plato, Descartes and Kant

have all made a empts to define and understand the nature of knowledge and to

unearth the forces underpinning various phenomena in life. The methodologies used

by these philosophers in their pursuit to obtain and construct knowledge s ll serve

today as the fundamental guidelines for basic and applied research. The discovery,

crea on and construc on of knowledge encapsulated in a form of various

management theories in the twen eth century supported the industrial revolu on,

which turned later into the informa on revolu on. In turn, this has made it possible

to a ain business goals in a more profound and realis c way. But it was not un l mid

1980’s that individuals and organisa ons began to appreciate the increasingly

important role of knowledge in the emerging compe ve environment. At this me

there was the realisa on that informa on systems and technology were con nually

growing, and technology was regarded as a panacea for all the complex business

problems. This acted as an impetus for experts in the field of informa on system and

technology to undertake various ini a ves in the domain of ar ficial intelligence, and

to develop different kinds of expert systems replica ng the expert knowledge of

human experts. The basic assump on was that knowledge could be readily obtained

from an expert, easily codified and promptly put into use by others. To the

researchers dismay, such ini a ves did not meet with a lot of perceived success in

actual prac ce. They met with failures and non-use primarily because of the
complexity and user-non-friendliness of such technologies rendered them ineffec ve

(O’Brien, 1997).

The technological advances in the informa on distribu ng mediums and the

development of Informa on Communica on Technologies (ICT), internet and

intranet, provided IT experts with new technological tools to make it possible to

capture, codify, transfer and share knowledge. Unfortunately these ini a ves have

also significant failed to realise expected benefits (Aouad et al., 1999; Davenport and

Pursak, 2000; Fernie et al., 2002). Various causes behind the failures may include

(Davenport and Pursak, 2000; Fernie et al., 2002, Walker, 2003; Liebowitz and

Megbolugbe, 2003; Kamara et al., 2002; Malhotra, 2000):

• The high technological dependence of these ini a ves,

• An inability to properly understand the complexity of knowledge and its esoteric

nature,

• The neglect of human related factors associated with change,

• A lack of recogni on of the need for appropriate leadership, vision, strategy and

culture,

• Ignoring individual value systems and the no on of trust, and

• An insufficient reward system and a lack of mo va on. Storey and Barne (2000)

conducted a study of what can be learnt from the failure of KM ini a ves and

confirmed above men oned factors. Egbu (2000) observes that the lesson learnt

from these failures is that KM is 90% human ac vity and 10% technology. Similarly,

Tiwana (2003) notes that KM is not about building smart intranets, digital networks,

one me investment and enterprise wide ‘Infobahn’.

made available from humans and made part of the machines is being ques oned.

Fernie et al. (2003) have argued against the assump on, on which orthodox KM is

based; that knowledge freely exists and can be easily captured and shared through

machines. They believe knowledge is a problema c esoteric concept that doesn’t

lend itself easily to codifica on. This applies especially to tacit knowledge capture

that has become a contemporary theme of KM research. Tacit knowledge is highly

individualis c and concomitant with various surrounding contexts within which it is

shaped and enacted. For this reason KM supports and requires the building of

communi es of prac ce (Wenger, 1998) and the development of social networks

through which tacit knowledge transfers and sharing may be made possible (Bresne

et al., 2003; Augier and VendelØ, 1999; Swan et al., 1999; Hearn et al., 2002). These

communi es of prac ce may be real and exist in form of informal gatherings or

formal conference/seminars/workshops. Alterna vely, they can be virtual in the form

of online forums or web-discussion boards, where experts can interchange ideas and

leave their exper se and knowledge in the forum for others to u lise and share

(Liebowitz and Megbolugbe, 2003).

It can be argued that the current KM research and theory has generally restricted

itself to organisa onal knowledge contained with in the boundaries of the

organisa on. The emphasis is to capture, codify, transfer and share such knowledge

that is embedded in the organisa on’s rou nes and processes. Knowledge resides in

employees’ heads in a tacit form, and KM seeks it to make it explicit through the

balanced use of technology and so human related factors like leadership, vision,

strategy, reward systems and culture. This offers an efficient yet rather restricted and
 narrow scope of KM, and compares poorly with what KM is actually perceived to

offer. There is a need to further expand its boundaries and provide benefits to

organisa ons that meet realis c expecta ons.

FUTURE OF KM

The future of knowledge management (KM) involves people and advanced

technology working together. Some trends in KM include:

 Artificial intelligence (AI)

AI and machine learning (ML) can automate and streamline processes. For

example, 44% of knowledge management experts believe AI could be used to

recommend relevant information or articles.

 Knowledge integration

KM will enable knowledge integration across diverse domains.

 Workflow

Companies will shift their business processes to platforms that enable smooth

and efficient workflow.

 Digital workspaces

Improved user-friendliness will be a big knowledge management trend for 2023.

Other trends in KM include:

 Measuring comparable decisions in the present to those in the past

 Improving access to collective knowledge

 Leading to a more efficient, connected, and empowered workforce

3. DIRECTIONS IN KM RESEARCH: TRENDS AND

POTENTIALS

This sec on outlines the various poten als and trends that form part of the current

direc on of undertaking KM research. The following illustrates more recent foci of

KM research including revisi ng the underlying concept of KM. For this reason

Tiwana (2003) observes that KM is progressively developing since the 1950s. Collins

(2002) who felt a sense of “Déjà vu” expressed the same sen ment while analysing

knowledge work. KM may act as an umbrella term encompassing all similar concepts

that are apparently having a flow of their own into one single stream. The resul ng

synergy would help strengthen KM concepts and would make it easy for researchers

to concentrate on their research endeavours.

3.1 KM AS AN INNOVATION ENABLER

Research into the management of innova on is more than 50 years old.

Organisa ons have always looked for improved ways of business to keep

themselves highly compe ve and sustainable in the market. As a result they

con nually create knowledge with a view to differen ate and gain advantage
 over their compe tors. KM may well provide a means of producing

advantages through innova on. Stewart (1997) explained that tacit

knowledge of individuals is of immense value to the organisa on as a whole,

and is the ‘wellspring of innova on’. The ability of KM to convert people’s

tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is an essen al part of innova on

(Nonaka and Taguchei, 1995; von Krogh et al., 2000). A number of research

ini a ves are inves ga ng the role of KM in producing and suppor ng

innova on in the construc on industry (Miozzo and Dewick, 2002; Salter and

Gann, 2003; Husin and Rafi, 2003). The lessons learnt from such ini a ves

provide direc on for future research into innova on and KM

3.2 KM AS A LEARNING PROCESSOR

Learning is always associated with be er outcomes. Having learnt lessons

avoids ‘reinven ng the wheel’ and ‘making the same mistakes again’. Argyris

(1978) and Senge (1990) introduced the idea of single loop learning and

double loop learning, organisa onal learning and the learning organisa on. In

a project environment, and industries like the construc on industry, it is

highly desirable that lessons learnt are captured from one project and put

into use on next projects, achieving reduc on in project mes and

subsequent efficiencies (Kamara et al., 2002). Construc on organisa ons

usually develop project histories and databases as repositories to keep such

knowledge of the lessons learnt. KM provides a structured way for developing

such repositories and ensures that knowledge is disseminated in a mely

fashion to the users. Maqsood et al., (2003) iden fy the role of KM in

learning organisa on. Bringing organisa onal learning and the learning

organisa on under the umbrella of KM helps various similar concepts to

merge together and remove the confusions and conten on influencing the

research community

3.3 KM ENCOMPASSING INNOVATION ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION

ISSUES

All organisa ons at some point are confronted with the decision to adopt a

certain innova on in a form of improved technology or process, and are faced

with the challenge of how to diffuse it throughout the organisa on. This is a

crucial decision as it involves significant investment and commitment on

behalf of the organisa on, and it may determine the success of the

organisa on. Researchers like Roger (1995) have discussed this issue of

adop on and diffusion of innova on at great length, however the rela onship

with KM is an emerging theme for research. A new innova on that is adopted

and diffused becomes transferred knowledge, percola ng the organisa on

that accommodates and then manages the knowledge. This process of

transfer, accommoda on and management is a con nuing field of research.

3.4 KM AS A KNOWLEDGE SHARING FACILITATOR IN SUPPLY CHAINS

The emerging concept of supply chains and supply chain management is

revolu onising the business world. This revolu on is evident in changing the

unit of compe on from organisa on vs. organisa on to chain vs. chain. At

trust among the trading partners. This sort of commitment and trust

emanates from sharing the knowledge with other trading partners in the

supply chain as well as joint problem solving within the concept of a ‘super-

team’. Conven onally informa on flow from one end of the supply chain to

other but se ng up KM elements in supply chain management, knowledge

not informa on alone would flow from one extreme end of supply chain to

other. As a result, workmanship improves, quality gets enhanced and the

number of defec ve items reduces, producing significant amount of me and

related costs savings. KM principals are for everyone in the supply chain. Only,

the way through which they may want to reap benefits may vary and depend

on the organisa on’s posi on in the supply chain. The type of knowledge

required by organisa ons significantly varies depending upon its role in the

supply chain. Asser ons that KM is principally an issue for large organisa ons

is misleading, all organisa ons regardless of their size may benefit from KM.

There is a need to customize KM strategies based on the organisa on’s, which

in turn is dependent on its posi on in the supply chain.

3.5 KM AS AN INTERFACE WITH ACADEMIA AND EXTERNAL

INNOVATION SOURCES

Most valuable academic research with significant poten al for providing

benefits goes unno ced. Similarly, other innova ve organisa ons involved in

cu ng edge research find it extremely difficult to penetrate user

products, which o en significantly raises the product price. In today’s

complex and highly compe ve business environment, no organisa on wants

to give up their compe ve advantage. They are o en ready to adopt any

sort of innova on provided they can foresee, through cost benefit analysis,

benefits arising out of it. Construc on organisa ons, especially, are so busy

coping with the swi pace of construc on that hardly any me is le for them

to look for the ways to improve their work prac ces. Their main objec ve is

always to get the work done as soon as possible and save themselves from

the sword of liquidated damages that always looms over their heads. A strong

need is felt by construc on organisa ons, therefore, for having an interface

with the external world and to be able to browse through available

innova ons and cu ng edge research, choose and sample those based on

the needs of the organisa on and disseminate them to concerned personnel and

departments. KM can well take up this role (Maqsood, et al., 2003).

3.6 KM AS AN R&D FACILITATOR AND INNOVATION DIFFUSER Business

organisa ons in various sectors operate their own R&D departments fairly

well but construc on organisa ons find it very hard to jus fy investment in

R&D. As described earlier, most of the me, they are happy with the tools and

techniques they already have and consider those enough to finish the on-

going project. Se ling R&D under the theme of KM would give a new vigour

and vitality to the concept of R&D, where the objec ve would not only be the

crea on of knowledge but also codify and disseminate it in mely fashion

its link with KM has reinforced KM’s role (Peansupap et al 2003). Further

acknowledgment of the ‘s ckiness’ of knowledge, its difficulty in being

effec ve transferred (Szulanski 2003) together with improved understanding

of how innova on and knowledge is transferred (Dixon 2000), has led to a

greater apprecia on of the role of KM as a diffusion mechanism of bringing

R&D and innova on together as joint mechanisms in building compe ve

advantage. Further, the link between R&D and building what Cohen and

Levinthal (1990) describe as absorp ve capacity, the ability to build learning

through experience of experimenta on and reflec on, is being more widely

appreciated now that wider principles of KM are linked to the R&D process

3.7 KM COMPLIMENTING THE HUMAN RESOURCE

FUNCTION

As we learn, under the new and emerging paradigm, its people not machines

that ma ers most to the organisa on. Human resource management (HRM)

for a long me is associated with handling of people’s intelligence. Here lies a

great opportunity for KM to assist and compliment exis ng human resource

management prac ces and provide with some framework where it may be

possible to quan fy people’s intellect so their knowledge is best exploited to

the benefit of the organisa on. Poten al research in this realm also includes

the reevalua on of HRM as a more ac ve and strategic enabler of building

organisa onal competencies, of developing reward systems to more

competence within organisa ons provides fer le ground for KM research.

The paper has discussed the current state of KM research and has iden fied

various research direc ons that may be possible under the theme of KM. The

list of ini a ves examined is not exhaus ve and may enlarge as the research

area progresses. KM research has seen a paradigm shi in focus from more

technology dependent to less technology dependent and is being considered

more human oriented ac vity. This has made o en ignored issues like

leadership, vision, culture, mo va ons and rewards even more crucial to the

success of KM ini a ves. KM is emerging as a business philosophy promising

enhanced benefits to the organisa ons. Some may argue that KM is not new

per se or a recycled concept. However, this is not true, KM is a paradigm in its

own right and occupies its own intellectual domain. At present researchers

are focussing their effort on a very restricted view of KM. KM is actually

associated with the handling of any type of knowledge which makes it

possible to merge various streams of research (knowledge) with KM. Research

in innova on, organisa onal learning and learning organisa ons, adop on of

innova on and its diffusion can suitably be merged with KM theory. This

would simplify the research process and would reduce complexi es and

confusion in a research process. At the same me it would make easy for

prac oners to understand it and hence employ it. The iden fica on of

various poten al and trend makes ground fer le for our future work, where

we are researching to show the legi mate existence of KM func on or

specifically be undertaken by it.