Search results

This research seeks to understand, for the first time, what motivates knowledge-intensive organizations (KIOs) to initiate knowledge management (KM) activities in times of routine and emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic was placed at the center as a case study of an extreme crisis.

Based on the adoption of the qualitative-constructivist paradigm, the study was conducted among 52 KM professionals through in-depth interviews and focus groups. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method, according to the principles of the grounded theory approach.

The findings reveal that opportunities and risks are two types of catalysts which accelerate KM efforts in times of routine and emergency respectively. Due to KM’s support of the transition to flexible employment during COVID-19, the authors show that this field experienced real growth and prosperity in the “new normal.” KM initiatives were promoted during the COVID-19 crisis in light of gaps in retention, sharing, accessibility and development of knowledge.

Given that knowledge risks are a field with fragmented understanding, the results contribute to understanding the importance of risk management related to knowledge in times of crises and turmoil. The authors call for incorporating this niche into the overall risk management of the organization, while adopting a holistic and long-term perspective of KM. Furthermore, the authors uncover KM’s position in KIOs during the global pandemic. The paper proposes food for thought regarding informal knowledge sharing in virtual environments typical of the “Corona routine”.

This study aims to give expression, for the first time, to the contemporary perceptions of knowledge management (KM) professionals regarding the technological layer in KM. From an organizational-holistic view, the authors strive to provide a deeper understanding of the position and role of technology in KM in knowledge-intensive organizations.

As part of the adoption of the qualitative-constructivist paradigm, the research started with in-depth interviews and continued with focus groups. The data were collected from 21 KM experts and analyzed according to the thematic analysis method, based on the grounded theory.

Although many hopes depend on technological tools, the authors learn why KM cannot be considered a purely information technology (IT)-based process. The study raises significant concern regarding the leadership of KM efforts by IT units, due to the possible lack of focus on strategic aspects supported by that support closing knowledge gaps. KM experts support technological changes and anticipate the introduction of automated mechanisms for knowledge flow processes.

Understanding the technological component of KM provides a window of opportunity for the meanings ascribed by the professionals to the whole KM discipline. The results improve the understanding that the KM community should be required to be more aware of the business-organizational aspects for which the practice of KM in the organization is required, as well as the centrality of human resources in knowledge creation and sharing. Moreover, the paper provides a unique glimpse into the future of organizational KM.

This study aims to examine the relevance of the term “knowledge management” (KM) in the organizational context, and deliberates whether there is a need for rebranding of this field. It also enriches the understanding regarding the appropriateness of the term “KM,” which was chosen to represent the discipline.

This study adopted a qualitative research methodology, and a case study approach was followed by conducting 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews with international KM experts working in a global consulting firm. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method based on the grounded theory approach.

The findings provide empirical evidence that attempts are being made to move away from the label “KM” in certain knowledge-intensive organizations. This study sheds light on the challenges associated with this term, which leads some to believe that the name of the discipline needs to change.

The present pioneering research contributes to empirical knowledge through investigation of an unexplored scientific field. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, for the first time, its uniqueness can be established by the fact that the opinions of KM professionals are being heard regarding the “KM” label, as well as the need for a rebranding of this discipline in the organizational context. From a practical and strategic perspective, this study suggests that the research community and practitioners pay attention to attempts to shift away from the existing title identified in organizational practice.

This paper focuses on the meanings attributed to the measurement of return on investment (ROI) in knowledge management (KM) initiatives in knowledge-intensive organizations. At the heart of this exploratory research is the introduction of a unique coherent perspective of discipline experts regarding the ROI metric, as part of their perception of assessing effectiveness in this field.

The research begins with in-depth semi-structured personal interviews and continues with focus groups, as part of a qualitative research paradigm. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method, based on the grounded theory approach.

The findings provide empirical evidence regarding the significant challenges associated with the objective assessment of KM performance, which is deeply rooted in numerical-financial values. Despite the high status of ROI in the business environment, the authors find that decision-makers surprisingly avoid evaluating ROI for the most important resource of the organization, notwithstanding the immeasurable hopes that depend on this performance measure and the expectation of establishing the profitability of investment in organizational KM.

The uniqueness of this research is the adoption of the skeptical-critical research approach. For the first time, the authors interrogate the suitability and relevance of the general model of the ROI metric as a means of proving the value and contribution of well-managed knowledge to organizations. The authors call for adoption of a new integrative perspective for evaluating effectiveness, which will reflect the holistic set of KM in organizations.

This study aims to identify the risks associated with the lack of optimal knowledge management (KM) in knowledge-intensive organizations and delves into understanding their severity. In doing so, the authors explored the significance attributed to these issues by international KM experts.

A case method was chosen. The study began with semi-structured in-depth interviews and continued with focus groups as part of the qualitative research paradigm. The data was analyzed using a thematic analysis method, based on the grounded theory approach.

The findings provide empirical evidence for a set of risks faced by organizations in a reality where organizational knowledge is managed poorly. The study finds that, in the experts’ view, the risks associated with knowledge constitute a clear catalyst for initiating and investing efforts to manage organizational knowledge. In addition, their severity is usually understood only after the occurrence of a business or organizational crisis related to knowledge.

This pioneering research contributes to empirical knowledge through an unexplored scientific field. The uniqueness of this research is also reflected in the voices of KM professionals. The authors extended the literature on knowledge risks, taking a broad perspective of a variety of organizations from different sectors. In doing so, the study also contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of KM. The study has implications on the practical level in view of deepening the understanding of the severity of the risk in the absence of optimal KM in knowledge-intensive organizations.