IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/isacfm/v16y2009i4p293-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of the evolution of a taxonomy for best practices: a case for ‘knowledge efficiency’

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel E. O'Leary

Abstract

Taxonomies play an increasingly important role in knowledge management of business best practices, providing a basis by which to index, find and communicate knowledge. However, knowledge continues to evolve over time. As a result, taxonomies must also continue to evolve as organizations innovate and change. Reportedly, firms customize best‐practice taxonomies to meet their unique organization needs. Accordingly, we might expect organizations to generate dissimilar best‐practice taxonomies. However, taxonomies must also reflect the state of knowledge in the area being categorized, and thus are likely to be similar in many ways in different organizations. The purpose of this paper is to study how taxonomies change in different organizations and how they stay the same. In order to explain the parallels in organizational taxonomies, the notion of ‘knowledge artefact efficiency’ (or knowledge efficiency) is suggested to capture the concept that new knowledge is rapidly adopted by many organizations in their knowledge management systems. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel E. O'Leary, 2009. "A comparative analysis of the evolution of a taxonomy for best practices: a case for ‘knowledge efficiency’," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 293-309, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:isacfm:v:16:y:2009:i:4:p:293-309
    DOI: 10.1002/isaf.309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/isaf.309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:isacfm:v:16:y:2009:i:4:p:293-309. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1099-1174/ .

    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.