IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v36y2008i2p282-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A process model of establishing knowledge management: Insights from a longitudinal field study

Author

Listed:
  • Kjærgaard, Annemette
  • Kautz, Karlheinz

Abstract

This paper contributes to the discussion on how to manage knowledge in organizations. Taking a perspective which acknowledges the importance of, but does not privilege, IT as the decisive element, it reports the results of a study investigating the process of establishing as opposed to conducting knowledge management. Based on a grounded theory approach to the analysis of the empirical data, a model of establishing knowledge management in organizations is developed. The model emphasizes how the organizational members make sense of the action and behavior of management, and how this understanding influences their own perceptions and actions in the process of establishing knowledge management. This leads to an understanding of knowledge management as an autonomous venturing process. The model is then used to suggest an explanation of why establishing knowledge management was not successful in the case which was investigated. Conclusions are provided on how the model can be further exploited for studying and improving the practice of knowledge management.

Suggested Citation

  • Kjærgaard, Annemette & Kautz, Karlheinz, 2008. "A process model of establishing knowledge management: Insights from a longitudinal field study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 282-297, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:2:p:282-297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(06)00101-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ravasi, Davide & Verona, Gianmario, 2001. "Organising the process of knowledge integration: the benefits of structural ambiguity," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 41-66, March.
    2. Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates & Kazuo Okamura & Masayo Fujimoto, 1995. "Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 423-444, August.
    3. Pettigrew, Andrew M., 1997. "What is a processual analysis?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 337-348, December.
    4. Bjorn Lovas & Sumantra Ghoshal, 2000. "Strategy as guided evolution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(9), pages 875-896, September.
    5. Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "Selective Intervention and Internal Hybrids: Interpreting and Learning from the Rise and Decline of the Oticon Spaghetti Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 331-349, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Siew, Tuck Fatt, 2008. "Transferable decision-making procedure for integrated flood management: A theoretical approach to the micro studies of human decision-making and decision makers heuristics," Working Papers 49-2008, University of Freiburg, Chair of Forestry Economics and Planning.
    2. Gefen, David & Reychav, Iris, 2014. "Why trustworthiness in an IT vendor is important even after the vendor left: IT is accepting the message and not just the messenger that is important," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 111-125.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Kummelstedt, 2023. "The Role of Hierarchy in Realizing Collective Leadership in a Self-Managing Organization," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 355-375, June.
    2. Guido Fioretti, 2012. "Two measures of organizational flexibility," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 957-979, November.
    3. Fioretti, Guido, 2008. "Two Lyapunov Functions for Flexible Organizations," MPRA Paper 8204, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kjærgaard, Annemette, 2004. "Internal corporate venturing during organisational change:," Working Papers 2004-19, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Informatics.
    5. Jacqueline Mees-Buss & Catherine Welch & D. Eleanor Westney, 2019. "What happened to the transnational? The emergence of the neo-global corporation," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1513-1543, December.
    6. Ma, Li & Zhai, Xin & Zhong, Weiguo & Zhang, Zhi-Xue, 2019. "Deploying human capital for innovation: A study of multi-country manufacturing firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 241-253.
    7. Linus Dahlander, 2022. "The role of autonomy and selection at the gate in flat organizations," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(1), pages 27-29, March.
    8. Jillian D. Chown & Christopher C. Liu, 2015. "Geography and power in an organizational forum: Evidence from the U.S. Senate Chamber," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 177-196, February.
    9. A. Georges L. Romme, 2019. "Climbing up and down the hierarchy of accountability: implications for organization design," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Oliver Baumann & Nils Stieglitz, 2011. "Motivating Organizational Search," DRUID Working Papers 11-08, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    11. Michael G. Jacobides & Stephan Billinger, 2006. "Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From “Make, Buy, or Ally” to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 249-261, April.
    12. Robert S. Gibbons & Manuel Grieder & Holger Herz & Christian Zehnder, 2019. "Building an Equilibrium: Rules Versus Principles in Relational Contracts," CESifo Working Paper Series 7871, CESifo.
    13. Jean-Philippe Denis & Frank Tannery, 2002. "L'architecture des systèmes de contrôle de la stratégie dans les groupes," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(3), pages 69-114, September.
    14. Hélène Laurell & Leona Achtenhagen & Svante Andersson, 2017. "The changing role of network ties and critical capabilities in an international new venture’s early development," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 113-140, March.
    15. Per Engelseth & Richard Glavee-Geo & Artur Janusz & Enoch Niboi, 2020. "The Emergent Nature of Networked Sustainable Procurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Sally Maitlis & Thomas B. Lawrence, 2003. "Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark: Understanding Failure in Organizational Strategizing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 109-139, January.
    17. Gerald C. Kane & Jeremiah Johnson & Ann Majchrzak, 2014. "Emergent Life Cycle: The Tension Between Knowledge Change and Knowledge Retention in Open Online Coproduction Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3026-3048, December.
    18. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2013. "Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    19. Nii Antiaye Addy & Arash Shaban-Nejad & David L. Buckeridge & Laurette Dubé, 2015. "An Innovative Approach to Addressing Childhood Obesity: A Knowledge-Based Infrastructure for Supporting Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Decision-Making in Quebec, Canada," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Frans Prenkert, 2012. "Business Network Simulation: Combining Research Cases and Agent-Based Models in a Robust Methodology," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(6), pages 82-92, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:2:p:282-297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.