Integrating knowledge

management into organisational

learning
A review of concepts and models
Kit Fai Pun and Marcia Nathai-Balkissoon
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
The University of the West Indies, St Augustine,
Trinidad and Tobago
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to review the concepts and constructs of some common models and
frameworks advocated for knowledge management (KM) and organisational learning (OL) in
literature. It sets forth a critical enquiry towards the integration of KM and OL practices and their
relationship with the concepts of the learning organisation (LO) and chaordic organisation/enterprise
(CO/CE).
Design/methodology/approach A literature search of KM and OL was conducted through the
use of multiple ProQuest databases spanning the period from 1996 to 2009. This paper reviews 18
studies, focusing on recognition of major KM and OL approaches and contributions adopted in
industry. Besides, a host of 14 KM and OL models and frameworks is used to identify various
important considerations in practice.
Findings Many researchers and practitioners have been attempting to integrate the theories of KM
and OL into organisational practice. A considerable number of them are concerned largely with
information systems and technology. Conceptual knowledge transfer, knowledge acquisition and
creation, and learning models underlie much of the work being done in the eld. Some studies have
forwarded the call for systems integration and organisational effectiveness. Systems approaches,
culture, and the LO and CO/CE concepts are among the most popularly cited factors for the
development of a holistic model.
Research limitations/implications A close relationship between KM and OL has emerged
during the past 14 years, with applications related to LO and CO/CE emerging slowly in the past
decade. Further research is needed to expand the integrative relationship through the development of
explicitly stated theories and models with empirical evidence.
Originality/value There is a need to integrate the theories of KM and OL with the OL concepts to
make them more comprehensible, better aligned and applicable to specic elds of work and to best
management practice.
Keywords Knowledge management, Learning organizations, Integration
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Knowledge has been recognised as essential to help rms to compete. It becomes
essential to continue developing and managing company knowledge in order to keep
abreast of continuing change from the internal and external environment (Davenport
and Prusak, 1998; Jarrar, 2002) and to gain advantages (Lee, 2000). Demarest (1997)
advises that the degree to which knowledge management (KM) is benecial to an
organisation depends on the following six factors:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm
Integrating
knowledge
management
203
The Learning Organization
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2011
pp. 203-223
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696471111123261
(1) management culture pertaining to the value and purpose of knowledge;
(2) how knowledge is created, transferred, and used in the company;
(3) the benets expected to come about from KM;
(4) the existing level of KM systems at the company;
(5) the methods used to institute KM; and
(6) the level to which information technology will be applied within the KM system.
Gupta et al. (2000) add that KM benets should be measured through customer
satisfaction, nancial indices, innovation metrics, among others.
The organisations that learn fastest and use knowledge most effectively are most
likely to become and remain leaders (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000; Smith, 2008).
The concepts of KM are integrally linked with organisational learning (OL), and both
play a role in the operation or establishment of a learning organisation (LO) and a
chaordic organisation (CO) (or chaordic enterprise (CE)) (following van Eijnatten and
Putnik (2004a, b)). Senge (1992) denes LO as organisations where people continually
expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where
people are continually learning to learn together. There are ve synergistic disciplines
which dene the ideal LO and he insists that these ve ingredients (namely, personal
mastery, team mastery, mental models, shared vision, and systems thinking) must be
present if OL is to thrive.
Evolving from organisation learning, many researchers (e.g. Fitzgerald and van
Eijnatten (2002), Putnik (2009) and van Eijnatten et al. (2007)) advocated the chaordic
system thinking (CST) as a model for complexity and learning management in
organisations towards (organisational) sustainability. A CO/CE is a sustainable
organisation, where CST is providing the capabilities to survive crisis situations.
According to van Eijnatten et al. (2007), CST is characterised by ve chaordic
properties, namely consciousness, connectivity, indeterminacy, dissipation and
emergence. Humans are central and the consequent communication processes.
Putnik (2009) contends that CST mechanisms are proved feasible and acceptable
within the organisation that seeks sustainability, which is an emerging requirement in
todays turbulent environments.
This paper reviews recent relevant work and models/frameworks advocated in
literature from 1996 to 2009. It attempts to identify the commonalities that exist
between KM/OL concepts and applications, and discusses further work that could be
done towards the integration of KM and OL practices, given some emergent concepts
related to LO and CO/CE. The methodology applied is a secondary analysis of the
literature that present concepts, research thesis and case study on adoption of KM and
OL practices, applications of KM/OL models and frameworks, and identication of
core KM/OL features for sustaining performance in organisations.
2. Linking KM and OL
It is generally accepted that there is a hierarchical relationship between data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom, with data seen as a primary or raw form,
information being a processed form that gives usefulness to data, and knowledge being
the result of judicious application of information (Rowley, 2006; Bajaria, 2000).
TLO
18,3
204
Knowledge is complex, multidimensional and imparted in different ways to different
people. Some theorists view it as an object for capture and transfer, and others think
it should be managed as a process, as it is impacted by people and systems within
organisations (Hara and Schwen, 2006).
Knowledge management is the process that helps organisations nd, select,
organise, disseminate, and transfer important information and expertise necessary for
activities such as problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision
making (Gupta et al., 2000). Polyani (1958) rstly dened tacit and explicit
categorisations of knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) promote the concept of
tacit and explicit knowledge, and propose a process model that is based on the concept
of a knowledge spiral. Tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge in order to
be shared by one person and back again to tacit knowledge when internalised and
adopted by another person, and the continuing sequential process of socialisation,
externalisation, combination and internalisation (SECI). The SECI model is widely
accepted and has served as the foundation for many other concepts over the past
decade (Hoe, 2006).
According to Holtshouse (1999), ten knowledge approaches and/or activities are
mandatory for supporting KM leadership. These are:
(1) sharing knowledge and best practices;
(2) instilling responsibility for knowledge sharing;
(3) capturing and reusing past experiences;
(4) embedding knowledge in products, services, and processes;
(5) producing knowledge as a product;
(6) driving knowledge generation for innovation;
(7) mapping networks of experts;
(8) building and mining customer knowledge bases;
(9) understanding and measuring the value of knowledge; and
(10) leveraging intellectual assets.
The identication mandatory activities and accompanied checklist of items make KM
accessible in the workplace.
Organisational learning, on the other hand, is grounded in individual learning but
dependent on the merging of formal education with experience in the group settings
(Hyland and Matlay, 1997). Practical learning is supported if individuals or groups
follow a cycle of experience, observation and reection, abstract conceptualisation, and
active experimentation (Rowley, 2006). Sanchez (2005) stresses a continuum of
knowledge (through process, system or culture) with emergence of new knowledge
on one end, and embedding or adoption of new knowledge, on the other.
Organisations actively encourage, support, and reward OL by focusing on collective
individual learning, process or system, culture or metaphor, KM, and continuous
improvement (Wang and Ahmed, 2003).
KM evolves to higher-order OL when organisations progress from single-loop
(error-correction or incremental) learning to double-loop (innovative) processes
(Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000; Rowley, 2006; Bennet and Tomblin, 2006). Wang
and Ahmed (2003) advocate for heavier dependence on transformational or triple-loop
Integrating
knowledge
management
205
learning, where organisations learn to learn before they are forced to learn. In this
way, they can critically evaluate the placement of the organisation and its products,
processes and systems, changing the overall organisational strategy and context
before failure or problems force change and learning.
Many practitioners still function in a rst-generational KM mode, where KM is seen
only as IT-based and limited mostly to knowledge transfer and use (Firestone and
McElroy, 2004; Zuber-Skerritt, 2005). Second- and third-generation KM have evolved,
and OL becomes a close partner with KM (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000; Bennet
and Tomblin, 2006). According to Pemberton and Stonehouse (2000), the concepts of
KM and OL are integrally linked, as depicted in Figure 1.
3. Conduct of literature searches
KM and OL are related elds that have become increasingly popular, judging from the
large number of papers submitted in the past decade. Despite the wide reach of the
discipline, difculty in implementing KM and OL practices within organisations
persists. Gordon and Grant (2005) performed an analysis of KM literature from 1986 to
2004, and found that the publications were minimal prior to 1996, but began increasing
steadily thereafter. For this study, a similar method was adopted, and a literature
search on KM and OL was conducted largely through the use of multiple ProQuest
databases spanning the period from 1996 to 2009. The databases comprise abstracts,
full text, and referencing details for articles in 4,049 publications including 158 journals
(research, management and business), 48 magazines, 78 news service sources, and 22
report sources internationally. These publications and sources were of a representative
range of viewpoints and approaches of academics and practitioners who design and
use KM/OL systems. The search tactics are described as follows:
.
the term knowledge management was searched in citations and abstracts;
.
a review of the categorised list of results was then performed, and the search was
narrowed to the term knowledge management and organisational learning;
.
the search was narrowed to results in the sub-category Studies and Models;
Figure 1.
The OL and KM
relationship
TLO
18,3
206
.
each paper listed from the ProQuest database search was evaluated for relevance
to the purpose of the study; and
.
further searches were performed within other databases, such as Emerald, to
locate selected works referenced in the ProQuest literature.
4. Findings and analysis
4.1. Distribution of articles by publication date and type
Table I shows the distribution of 833 articles in eld of KM and OL over the period.
While growth was not exponential over the period considered, there was a signicant
increase from the 1990s. The submissions of journals (i.e. 677 articles) roughly account
for the majority of the growth of publications for the studied period. The popularity of
the eld seems to have picked up momentum from 1999, with steady growth also seen
in the magazines and trade publications (including news service sources) contributing
a total of 142 items. However, the publications of selected reports and other items (e.g.
dissertations and working papers) have remained very few (i.e. 14 items) throughout
the study period.
Table II shows the number of KM/OL articles categorised by sub-topics in
1996-2009. Of a total of 833 articles and publications, the ve most popular themes
were:
(1) studies (i.e. 480 items, 57.6 per cent);
(2) innovations (i.e. 57 items, 6.8 per cent);
(3) models (i.e. 43 items, 5.2 per cent);
(4) competitive advantage (i.e. 43 items, 5.2 per cent); and
(5) organisation theory (i.e. 39 items, 4.8 per cent).
The diverse range of KM/OL applications includes strategic management, information
systems, information technology, and information sharing, corporate culture,
organisation theory, competitive advantage, innovation, and models. The
Year
Journals (management,
research and business)
Magazines and trade
publications
Reports and
others Total
1996 5 0 0 5
1997 4 0 0 4
1998 4 0 0 4
1999 32 6 1 39
2000 52 4 1 57
2001 52 12 0 64
2002 39 11 1 51
2003 73 12 3 88
2004 65 12 1 78
2005 66 20 3 89
2006 67 12 1 80
2007 81 19 2 102
2008 74 23 1 98
2009 63 11 0 74
Total: 677 142 14 833
Table I.
Number of KM/OL
publications searched,
1996-2009
Integrating
knowledge
management
207
widespread applications may account for the acceptance of eld into work practice.
However, the ndings also reveal an uneven dispersion of the interest areas within the
elds.
4.2. Distribution of articles by journals
Table III shows a list of the 15 journals that published the most KM/ OL papers, along
with the numbers of articles published in each over the studied period. These journals
span the elds of learning, education and training, human resource management,
organisation development, process management, technology management, information
technology and systems, and general management. The wide-ranging elds indicate
that many researchers and practitioners are aware of the theories of KM and OL and
have been integrating them into organisational practices. A total of 138 (i.e. 46.0 per
cent) of the 300 selected articles were published in the three leading journals of the list,
namely The Learning Organization (i.e. 18.7 per cent), Journal of Knowledge
Management (i.e. 18.3 per cent) and Management Learning (i.e. 9.0 per cent). The
remaining 12 journals contributed 54.0 per cent of publications (i.e. 162 articles).
Sub-topics Number of articles Percentage
Studies 480 57.6
Innovation 57 6.8
Models 43 5.2
Competitive advantage 43 5.2
Corporate culture 40 4.8
Organisation theory 39 4.7
Information sharing 39 4.7
Information systems 33 4.0
Information technology 32 3.8
Strategic management 27 3.2
Total: 833 100
Table II.
Number of articles
searched by KM/OL
sub-topics, 1996-2009
Name of journals Number of articles Percentage
The Learning Organization 56 18.7
Journal of Knowledge Management 55 18.3
Management Learning 27 9.0
Knowledge and Process Management 22 7.3
Journal of Workplace Learning 20 6.7
International Journal of Technology Management 19 6.3
Development and Learning in Organizations 17 5.7
Knowledge Management Review 15 5.0
Organization Studies 13 4.3
Management Science 10 3.3
The Journal of Management Studies 10 3.3
Organization Science 9 3.0
Training and Development 9 3.0
Journal of European Industrial Training 9 3.0
Knowledge Management Research and Practice 9 3.0
300 100
Table III.
Number of KM/OL
articles by selected
journals, 1996-2009
TLO
18,3
208
4.3. Adoption of KM and OL practices
KM and OL studies have been plentiful, but have varied widely in their location, focus,
application and depth. A review of selected 18 studies was done in order to better
understand the major approaches and contributions in the combined eld of practice.
As Table IV shows, the reported KM/OL studies t into diverse areas, although a
considerable number of them were concerned largely with information
systems/technology (IS/IT) and applications. An interesting highlight of the review
of studies was that they seemed to be moving towards integration of concepts and
practices, since the 2008/2009 studies, especially, began to refer to the roles of KM and
OL in wider practice for the enhancement of organisational performance (Theriou and
Chatzoglou, 2009; Weldy, 2009).
Many articles categorised as studies were empirical studies (Simatupang and
White, 1998; Holtshouse, 1999; Szulanski, 2000; Edwards and Kidd, 2003; Lin and Lee,
2005; Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2005; Shah et al., 2007a, b; Theriou and
Chatzoglou, 2009; Massingham and Diment, 2009). However, other studies were
conceptual or theoretical in nature, and were geared towards the development of
theories related to KM/OL practices (such as Lehr and Rice, 2002; Toften and Olsen,
2003; Hasan and Crawford, 2003; Hoe, 2006; Ajmal et al., 2009). Many of these articles
have been written to capture an authors ideas on a topic, and sometimes to theorise on
a framework or model. Such theoretical work provides a basis for hypothesis
development, empirical testing, and development of structured frameworks for
KM/OL. Also, theoretical work provides different perspectives about existing work
and so drives development of the eld of KM and OL (Shah et al., 2007a, b).
5. Models and frameworks of KM/OL
Based on the literature search, a total of 14 selected KM/OL models and frameworks
were evaluated to identify important features for their applications in industry. Table V
presents a comparison of these models and frameworks with respect to their
contributions, strengths and weaknesses. That many of these models and frameworks
were holistic in nature is likely to be an indicator that the eld is maturing, and efforts
are being made to merge stand-alone concepts into umbrella ones that can be more
readily applied within organisations with a minimum of fuss or confusion. This section
outlines these models and frameworks in diverse and often cross-functional elds of
practice.
(1) Simatupang and Whites (1998) Knowledge Acquisition Model.
(2) Lees (2000) Knowledge Sharing Framework.
(3) Lams (2000) Integrated Framework.
(4) Burton-Jones (2001) Knowledge Supply Model.
(5) Argote et al..s (2003) Integrative KM Framework.
(6) Akgun et al.s (2003) Socio-Cognitive Framework.
(7) Siemieniuch and Sinclairs (2004) Process Framework for Knowledge Lifecycle
Management.
(8) Zuber-Skerritts (2005) Personal KM Model.
(9) Bennet and Tomblins (2006) Learning Network Framework.
Integrating
knowledge
management
209
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
S
t
u
d
y
d
o
n
e
H
o
w
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
d
o
n
e
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
o
f
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
S
i
m
a
t
u
p
a
n
g
a
n
d
W
h
i
t
e
(
1
9
9
8
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
o
l
i
c
y
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
T
Q
M
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
s
e
n
i
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
s
s
e
s
s
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
(
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
v
e
r
o
l
e
)
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
w
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
s
u
c
h
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
o
l
e
)
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
H
o
l
t
s
h
o
u
s
e
(
1
9
9
9
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
o
m
a
i
n
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
o
K
M
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
C
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
i
n
4
0
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
o
r
a
l
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
i
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
L
i
s
t
o
f
t
e
n

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
o
m
a
i
n
s

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
K
M
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
S
z
u
l
a
n
s
k
i
(
2
0
0
0
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
m
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
D
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
1
2
2
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
e
i
g
h
t

r
m
s
M
o
d
e
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
n
d

s
t
i
c
k
i
n
e
s
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
e
a
s
e
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
t
e
a
c
h
s
t
a
g
e
;
d
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
w
a
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
h
r
a
n
d
R
i
c
e
(
2
0
0
2
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
R
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
f
o
u
r
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
t
o
K
M
T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
t
o
K
M
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
t
a
k
e
t
h
i
s
t
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
i
n
t
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
T
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
d
O
l
s
e
n
(
2
0
0
3
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
m
o
d
e
l
t
h
a
t
l
i
n
k
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
o
r
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

e
l
d
s
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
m
u
s
t
b
e
q
u
a
n
t
i

e
d
H
a
s
a
n
a
n
d
C
r
a
w
f
o
r
d
(
2
0
0
3
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
A
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
T
h
e
o
r
y
t
o
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
t
o
K
M
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
w
i
t
h
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
t
u
d
y
1
)
a
n
d
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
(
s
t
u
d
y
2
)
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
o
t
h
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
K
M
T
h
e
s
t
e
p
w
i
s
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
t
o
b
o
o
s
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
t
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
i
n
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
a
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table IV.
Summary of selected
18 KM/OL studies,
1998-2009
TLO
18,3
210
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
S
t
u
d
y
d
o
n
e
H
o
w
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
d
o
n
e
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
o
f
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
K
i
d
d
(
2
0
0
3
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e

t
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
s
o
f
t
r
u
s
t

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
T
w
o
m
i
n
i
-
c
a
s
e
s
o
f
K
M
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
c
a
s
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
l
y
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
,
a
n
d
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
K
M
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
s
o
f
t
r
u
s
t
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
,
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
K
M
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
g
e
a
r
e
d
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
t
w
o
m
i
n
i
-
c
a
s
e
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
.
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
L
i
n
a
n
d
L
e
e
(
2
0
0
5
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
h
o
w
O
L
a
n
d
K
M
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
-
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
m
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
n
d
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
2
0
2
I
S
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
m
o
d
e
l
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
S
E
M
)
t
h
a
t
l
i
n
k
s
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
o
f
O
L
a
n
d
K
M
t
o
e
-
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
l
a
r
g
e
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
i
n
T
a
i
w
a
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
i
n

u
e
n
c
e

n
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
S
a
b
h
e
r
w
a
l
a
n
d
B
e
c
e
r
r
a
-
F
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
(
2
0
0
5
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
r
e
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
a
n
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
B
e
t
t
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
b
o
o
s
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
H
o
e
(
2
0
0
6
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
A
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
S
E
C
I
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
g
i
v
e
c
l
a
r
i
t
y
t
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
h
o
w
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
a
c
i
t
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
N
o
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
S
h
a
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
a
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
n
A
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
:
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r

t
a
n
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
,
p
l
a
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
,
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
w
h
i
l
e
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
p
h
a
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
a
h
e
a
d
t
o
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
p
h
a
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
c
a
p
t
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
o
n
s
p
e
c
i

c
i
s
s
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
d
e
a
l
t
w
i
t
h
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
b
u
t
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
e
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
w
a
s
o
n
l
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
s
i
n
g
l
e

r
m
.
W
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
b
e
n
e

t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
e
a
m
w
o
r
k
,
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
O
L
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table IV.
Integrating
knowledge
management
211
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
S
t
u
d
y
d
o
n
e
H
o
w
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
d
o
n
e
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
o
f
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
S
h
a
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
b
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
U
s
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
w
i
t
h
i
n
K
M
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
w
o
r
k
b
e
g
u
n
i
n
S
h
a
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
a
)
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
l
i
n
k
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
K
M
,
a
n
d
O
L
;
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
K
n
o
V
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
t
h
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
v
a
l
u
e
c
h
a
i
n
,
w
a
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
w
o
r
k
a
t
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
s
o
f
t
d
r
i
n
k
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

r
m
.
T
h
i
s
h
e
l
p
e
d
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
K
M
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
M
o
r
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
T
h
e
r
i
o
u
a
n
d
C
h
a
t
z
o
g
l
o
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
x
a
m
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
R
M
,
K
M
,
O
L
,
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
o
f
G
r
e
e
k
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
s
,
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
u
s
e
d
t
o
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
d
a
t
a
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
r
e
v
e
a
l
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

r
m
s
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
H
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
u
n
d
e
r
s
c
o
r
e
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
w
i
t
h
i
n
H
R
M
W
a
l
c
z
a
k
(
2
0
0
8
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
s
p
e
c
i

c
a
l
l
y
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
d
o
n
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s

a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
i
n
e
a
c
h
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
M
o
r
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
U
S
A
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
E
u
r
o
p
e
(
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
a
s
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
)
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
s
h
o
u
l
d
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
h
e
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
n
d
u
s
e
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
d
b
y

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
e
s
t
e
r
n

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
w
i
d
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
W
e
l
d
y
(
2
0
0
9
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
L
O
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
t
o
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
t
h
e
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
o
r
s
h
a
r
e
d
f
o
c
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
L
O
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
L
O
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
b
o
t
h
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
t
h
a
t
m
o
r
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
L
O
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
m
o
r
e
a
n
d
w
i
d
e
r
-
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
f
o
c
u
s
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
n
L
O
a
n
d
t
o
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table IV.
TLO
18,3
212
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
S
t
u
d
y
d
o
n
e
H
o
w
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
d
o
n
e
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
o
f
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
H
a
n
n
a
h
a
n
d
L
e
s
t
e
r
(
2
0
0
9
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
O
L
t
o
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
h
a
t
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
L
O
T
h
e
o
r
y
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
M
u
l
t
i
l
e
v
e
l
L
O
m
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
O
L
a
t
t
h
r
e
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
:
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
,
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
a
t
a
l
y
s
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
m
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
/
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
m
o
d
e
l
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
t
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
i
n
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
M
a
s
s
i
n
g
h
a
m
a
n
d
D
i
m
e
n
t
(
2
0
0
9
)
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
C
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
y
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
o
L
O
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
L
O
C
)
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
s
e
n
t
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
o
f
a
n
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n

r
m
t
o
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
h
o
w
u
s
e
o
f
a
W
i
k
i
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
L
O
C
.
T
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
w
e
r
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
n
L
O
C
m
o
d
e
l
T
h
e

n
a
l
L
O
C
m
o
d
e
l
r
e
v
e
a
l
e
d
t
h
a
t
L
O
C
i
s
b
o
t
h
a
n
i
n
p
u
t
a
n
d
o
u
t
p
u
t
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
l
s
o
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
K
M
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
u
c
c
e
e
d
T
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
t
o
h
o
w
h
u
m
a
n
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
,
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
L
O
C
A
j
m
a
l
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
y
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
K
M
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
b
a
s
e
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
K
M
i
s
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
d
t
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
d
e
g
r
e
e
b
y
t
h
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
b
e
l
i
e
f
s
a
n
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
t
e
a
m
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
m
b
r
a
c
e
s
K
M
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
p
e
r
t
h
a
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
h
e
c
l
o
s
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
K
M
a
n
d
O
L
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
l
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
p
l
a
y
s
i
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
Table IV.
Integrating
knowledge
management
213
A
u
t
h
o
r
,
y
e
a
r
M
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
F
i
e
l
d
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
W
e
a
k
n
e
s
s
e
s
S
i
m
a
t
u
p
a
n
g
a
n
d
W
h
i
t
e
(
1
9
9
8
)
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
M
o
d
e
l
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
h
o
w
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
m
u
s
t
s
h
i
f
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
r
a
p
i
d
a
n
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
-
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
-
t
a
k
i
n
g
T
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
t
w
o
p
o
l
i
c
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s
h
o
w
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
g
u
i
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
a
h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
t
h
a
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
b
o
t
h
g
r
o
u
p
s
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
L
e
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
S
h
a
r
i
n
g
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

v
e
s
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
b
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
a
g
e
o
r

l
i
f
e
c
y
c
l
e

w
i
t
h
i
n
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
n
e
e
d
s
.
I
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
e
m
a
t
u
r
i
t
y
o
f
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i

e
s
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
a
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
g
u
i
d
e
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
s
t
o
h
o
w
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
b
e
b
r
o
u
g
h
t
a
b
o
u
t
;
n
o
s
t
e
p
w
i
s
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
a
m
(
2
0
0
0
)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
O
L
A
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
h
a
t
l
i
n
k
s
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
w
i
t
h
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
e
t
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
m
e
r
g
e
s
t
h
e
o
r
y
f
r
o
m
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
m
a
y
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
i
t
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e

e
l
d
o
f
O
L
T
h
e
r
e
m
a
y
b
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
i
n

u
e
n
c
i
n
g
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
b
y
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
o
r
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
B
u
r
t
o
n
-
J
o
n
e
s
(
2
0
0
1
)
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
S
u
p
p
l
y
M
o
d
e
l
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
r
e
e
g
r
o
u
p
s
o
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
f
o
u
r
g
r
o
u
p
s
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
m
,
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
h
o
m
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
s
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
m
a
x
i
m
i
s
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
n
e

t
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
d
e
l
n
e
e
d
e
d
A
r
g
o
t
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
K
M
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
K
M
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
n
t
w
o
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
,
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
a
n
d
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
.
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
p
e
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
i
e
c
e
o
f
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
o
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
h
a
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
T
h
e
r
e
m
a
y
b
e
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
.
C
l
e
a
r
d
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
e
r
m
s
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
u
s
e
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
b
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table V.
Comparison among 14
KM/OL models and
frameworks, 1998-2008
TLO
18,3
214
A
u
t
h
o
r
,
y
e
a
r
M
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
F
i
e
l
d
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
W
e
a
k
n
e
s
s
e
s
A
k
g
u
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
S
o
c
i
o
-
C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
S
o
c
i
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
o
f
O
L
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
e
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
O
L
M
a
n
y
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
m
p
l
y
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
s
o
c
i
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
;
t
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
t
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
w
h
i
c
h
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
s
o
c
i
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
S
i
e
m
i
e
n
i
u
c
h
a
n
d
S
i
n
c
l
a
i
r
(
2
0
0
4
)
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
L
i
f
e
c
y
c
l
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
K
M
V
e
r
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
a
n
d
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
d
e

n
e
K
M
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
h
e
l
p
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
K
M
l
i
f
e
c
y
c
l
e
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
e
d
t
h
e
s
u
b
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
o
f
S
o
c
i
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
y
c
l
e
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
T
h
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
t
i
m
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
t
o

r
s
t
-
t
i
m
e
u
s
e
r
s
.
M
o
r
e

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
K
M
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
Z
u
b
e
r
-
S
k
e
r
r
i
t
t
(
2
0
0
5
)
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
K
M
M
o
d
e
l
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
K
M
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
o
f
a
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
m
o
d
e
l
w
h
i
c
h
l
i
n
k
s
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
-
l
e
v
e
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
K
M
.
A
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
,
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
A
c
t
i
o
n
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
l
o
o
k
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
l
y
a
t
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
m
i
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
o
n
e
o
r
a
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
c
a
s
e
s
a
t
a
t
i
m
e
B
e
n
n
e
t
a
n
d
T
o
m
b
l
i
n
(
2
0
0
6
)
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
(
I
C
T
)
i
n
O
L
O
L
i
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
d
w
h
e
n
a
r
t
i
f
a
c
t
s
,
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
l
i
n
k
e
d
b
y
I
C
T
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
i
m
p
l
e
,
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
,
m
o
d
e
r
n
h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
a
n
d
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
K
M
h
a
s
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
h
e
a
v
i
l
y
o
n
I
C
T
,
w
h
i
l
e
O
L
h
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
e
d
i
t
s
v
a
l
u
e
.
T
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
s
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
I
C
T
c
a
n
m
a
k
e
i
n
O
L
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
I
C
T
a
s
p
e
c
t
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
n
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e

e
l
d
K
e
n
n
y
(
2
0
0
6
)
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
y
M
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
L
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
t
o
s
e
l
e
c
t
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
n
e
e
d
s
L
e
a
d
e
r
c
a
n
u
s
e
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
a
s
s
e
s
s
t
h
e

t
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
n
e
e
d
s
M
o
d
e
l
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
s
e
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
n
d
t
h
i
r
d
o
r
d
e
r
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
l
y
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table V.
Integrating
knowledge
management
215
A
u
t
h
o
r
,
y
e
a
r
M
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
F
i
e
l
d
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
W
e
a
k
n
e
s
s
e
s
O
r
a
n
g
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
C
A
R
E
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
-
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
m
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
-
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
t
h
a
t
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
r
o
m
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
d
T
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l

s
a
c
t
i
o
n
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
m
a
y
m
a
k
e
i
t
u
s
e
f
u
l
a
s
a
g
u
i
d
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
L
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
s
p
e
c
i

c
t
o
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
e
-
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
M
o
r
e
w
o
r
k
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
r
k
u
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
L
O
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
S
e
c
t
o
r
K
M
a
n
d
L
O
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
a
n
L
O
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
o
n
t
h
e
i
n
p
u
t
s
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
S
o
m
e
s
o
f
t
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
v
e
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
C
h
a
n
g
a
n
d
L
e
e
(
2
0
0
7
)
L
O
M
o
d
e
l
L
O
,
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
o
d
e
l
o
f
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
n
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
o
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
w
a
s
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
e
s
t
e
d
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
g
a
n
d
L
e
e

s
p
a
p
e
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
d
a
t
a
o
n
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
a
n
d
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
o
d
e
l
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
h
o
w
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
r
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
c
a
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
o
r
v
i
c
e
v
e
r
s
a
P
a
g
a
n
o
a
n
d
P
a
u
c
a
r
-
C
a
c
e
r
e
s
(
2
0
0
8
)
H
o
l
o
n
o
m
i
c
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
C
y
c
l
e
s
K
M
,
O
L
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
E
d
w
a
r
d
s

(
2
0
0
5
)
H
o
l
o
n
o
m
i
c
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
a
c
l
e
a
r
e
r

t
w
i
t
h
O
L
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
:
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
a
l
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
W
h
e
r
e
o
n
l
y
v
e
r
y
w
e
a
k
l
i
n
k
s
w
e
r
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
s
e
e
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
O
L
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
w
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
a
l
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
)
,
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
l
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
h
a
s
m
a
d
e
t
h
e
l
i
n
k
m
o
r
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
.
T
h
i
s
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
c
o
r
e
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
h
e

e
l
d
N
o
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
a
s
y
e
t
Table V.
TLO
18,3
216
(10) Kennys (2006) Maturity Model for Strategy Formation.
(11) Orange et al.s (2007) CARE Integrated Framework.
(12) Barkur et al.s (2007) Learning Organisation Framework for the Insurance
Sector.
(13) Chang and Lees (2007) Conceptual Learning Organisation Model.
(14) Pagano and Paucar-Caceres (2008) Holonomic Integrative Cycles.
6. Identication of core KM/OL features
The past decade has seen the development of a close relationship between KM and
OL, as well as several related disciplines. As Simatupang and White (1998)
commented, learning, knowledge and action cannot separate from organisational
learning. The learning and theory that have grown out of KM have served to
promote the burgeoning acceptance of OL as an organisational management
practice. In the early 2000s, models sought to capture the way that knowledge
processes worked in very narrow elds such as knowledge acquisition and
knowledge supply (e.g. Lee (2000) and Burton-Jones (2001)). Some models referred to
a specic knowledge process (e.g. Simatupang and Whites (1998) knowledge
acquisition model) that seems more holistic than the title conferred by the authors.
This might happen because the term knowledge management was not yet in
popular use, as the eld was still emerging.
It is notable that conceptual knowledge transfer (Lee, 2000), knowledge acquisition
and creation (Simatupang and White, 1998; Zuber-Skerritt, 2005), and learning models
(Akgun et al., 2003; Sanchez, 2005; Orange et al., 2007) underlie much of the work being
done in the elds of KM and OL, regardless of the specics of practice, sector, or
country. Burton-Jones (2001) highlighted the emergence of knowledge capital as a
leading value in the new economy, and predicted that knowledge supply, by way of
education and training, is likely to become a leading growth industry. There has also
been a signicant focus on IT and IS in KM/OL (Bennet and Tomblin, 2006).
This study has also revealed that there has been a shift from a focus on
incremental and adaptive learning in the 1990s to recognition, in the past decade, of
the added value to be gained from innovative learning. The 1990s focused on OL,
largely excluding any consideration of the value of learning on an individual level,
and the social aspects of OL. Both individual and organisational learning
approaches became more popularly discussed with models such as Lams (2000)
Integrated Framework and Akgun et al.s (2003) Socio-Cognitive Framework being
proposed as the eld matured. Some models adopted a heavily action-centered
approach to learning (Orange et al., 2007) with consideration of social and personal
learning aspects (Lam, 2000; Akgun et al., 2003; Sanchez, 2005). Others stressed the
importance of maximising the learning benets from experience as individuals
and/or in the wider organisational context, within social circles inuenced by
culture and emotions (Barkur et al., 2007; Chang and Lee, 2007; Kenny, 2006;
Pagano and Paucar-Caceres, 2008).
Since the 1990s, focus on organisational learning has been broadened (Rebelo and
Gomes, 2008; Newbold and Pharoah, 2009; Dymock and McCarthy, 2006; Weldy, 2009)
to include the LO concept, which some persons conceptualised as an organisation that
is structured to maximise learning opportunities, generate new knowledge, and
Integrating
knowledge
management
217
achieve ever-improving results that yield competitive advantages. OL looks at how
learning takes place in organisations, and enhances our understanding of the processes
that operate within an LO, while understanding an LO depends on a much more
complex understanding of operations, with the need for sufcient insight about the
roles of OL, KM, [. . .] leadership, social networks, emotion, complexity/chaos,
systems, (and) technology [. . .] (Smith, 2008, p. 447). Furthermore, Weldy (2009) points
out the value of LO research instruments, such as the Dimensions of the Learning
Organisation Questionnaire (DLOQ) to understanding the extent to which LO
implementation has been realised. Instruments such as these would be a useful partner
to models and frameworks in the elds of KM, OL and LO.
An additional development has been the consideration of organisations as living
systems (Ng, 2009), whose learning is as distinct and real as the learning of any
individual(s) within the whole entity (Lee and Roth, 2007). There is a popular call to
move away from perceiving learning as a cause-and-effect linear process (Durrance,
1997; Ng, 2009) and toward embracing organisations as chaordic entities in which
chaos and order coexist. CST mechanisms have been emerging as a model that would
enable learning for the sustainability of CO/CE (Putnik, 2009).
7. Conclusion
Because KM and OL can be benecial in any aspect of organisational life (such as from
quality management and information systems, to nance and export management),
these disciplines have become very wide-ranging, with disparate views that reect
opinions and interests from varying vantage points. While all views may have value,
there is a need for some agglomeration and focus of the elds, especially so that
practitioners and academia can come to terms with accepted practice and theory, and
help the disciplines to move forward in more concrete and focused ways. This paper
highlights the trend of proposing models that consider the inuence of some of these
wide-ranging factors on knowledge and/or learning.
OL has emerged as a separate eld from KM, although they are very closely related.
Certainly, OL concepts have been inuenced by KM. The knowledge and learning
models proposed by such authors as Simatupang and White (1998) and Sanchez (2005)
illustrate the diversity and complexity of the interrelated elds of KM and OL. There is
a need to simplify and align the theories of KM and OL within the integrated eld to
make them more easily comprehensible, better aligned and more clearly applicable to
specic elds of work or to best management practice.
Many reviewed models focused on single and double-loop learning, with little or no
focus on higher levels of learning (Kenny, 2006). If this continues to be the case,
continuous improvement will remain the norm, but for companies to leap ahead, their
strategies should also include a focus on innovation (Wang and Ahmed, 2003). There is
a need to investigate to what extent innovation or higher order learning is embedded in
organisations, how this is done, and how this can be promoted as a way to benet a
countrys competitiveness. Moreover, future research would explore the integrative
relationship between KM and OL, and to make this relationship clear through
explicitly stated theories and models that are empirically developed and tested in large
organisations versus small and medium-sized enterprises across different industry
sectors.
TLO
18,3
218
Organisation learning models are becoming more holistic in their consideration, and
this is in line with the more recent ndings of many practitioners in the eld, with
views reecting the need for a wider-ranging approach (Lee and Roth, 2007; Rebelo and
Gomes, 2008) that extends beyond learning loops or knowledge management
techniques and technology to consider the role or impact of factors such as culture
(Bapuji and Crossan, 2004; Chang and Lee, 2007), change/complexity/chaos theory
(Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 2002), systems (Watkins and Marsick, 1998), and
leadership (Khadra and Rawabdeh, 2006) on organisational learning, as opposed to
individual learning within an organisation (Cook and Yanow, 1996).
Many authors highlight the need for further research on several fronts, to
conceptually propose and/or empirically investigate how OL could be encouraged or
maximised, and how organisations could become true LOs. Both KM and OL are
beginning to be automatically considered as sub-concepts within work related to
learning organisations. Further research would be worthwhile to extend KM and OL
research beyond the popular Western/large-scale/Anglo contexts to truly reect the
exigencies of organisations all around the world (Walczak, 2008). Given the complex
interactions and systems that exist within organisations, van Eijnatten (2004) and
Raiden and Dainty (2006) make the worthy suggestion that CST or complexity theory
should be a part of future research that seeks to better understand or inuence learning
organisations.
References
Ajmal, M.M., Kekale, T. and Takala, J. (2009), Cultural impacts on knowledge management and
learning in project-based rms, VINE, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 339-52.
Akgun, A.E., Lynn, G.S. and Byrne, J.C. (2003), Organisational learning: a socio-cognitive
framework, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 839-68.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), Managing knowledge in organisations:
an integrative framework and review of emerging themes, Management Science, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 571-82.
Bajaria, H.J. (2000), Knowledge creation and management: inseparable twins, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4-6, pp. 562-73.
Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004), From questions to answers: reviewing organisational
learning research, Management Learning, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 397-417.
Barkur, G., Varambally, K.V.M. and Rodrigues, L.L.R. (2007), Insurance sector dynamics:
towards transformation into learning organisation, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 510-23.
Bennet, A. and Tomblin, M.S. (2006), A learning network framework for modern organisations:
organisational learning, knowledge management and ICT support, VINE, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 289-303.
Burton-Jones, A. (2001), The knowledge supply model: a framework for developing education
and training in the new economy, Education Training, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 225-32.
Chang, S.C. and Lee, M.S. (2007), A study on relationship among leadership, organisational
culture, the operation of learning organisation and employees job satisfaction,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-85.
Cook, S. and Yanow, D. (1996), Culture and organisational learning, in Cohen, M.D. and Sproull, L.E.
(Eds), Organisational Learning, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 430-59.
Integrating
knowledge
management
219
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What
They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Demarest, M. (1997), Understanding knowledge management, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 374-84.
Durrance, B. (1997), The evolutionary vision of Dee Hock: from chaos to chaords, Training
& Development, Vol. 51 No. 4, p. 24.
Dymock, D. and McCarthy, C. (2006), Towards a learning organisation? Employee perceptions,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 525-36.
Edwards, J.S. and Kidd, J.B. (2003), Knowledge management sans frontie`res, The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 130-9.
Edwards, M. (2005), The integral holon: a holonomic approach to organisational change and
transformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-88.
Firestone, J.M. and McElroy, M.W. (2004), Organisational learning and knowledge management:
the relationship, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 177-84.
Fitzgerald, L.A. and van Eijnatten, F.M. (2002), Chaos speak: a glossary of chaordic terms and
phrases, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 412-23.
Gordon, R. and Grant, D. (2005), Knowledge management or management of knowledge?
Why people interested in knowledge management need to consider Foucault and the
construct of power, Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 27-38.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L.S. and Aronson, J.E. (2000), Knowledge management: practices and
challenges, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Hannah, S.T. and Lester, P.B. (2009), A multilevel approach to building and leading learning
organisations, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Hara, N. and Schwen, T.M. (2006), Communities of practice in workplaces: learning as a
naturally occurring event, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-114.
Hasan, H. and Crawford, K. (2003), Codifying or enabling: the challenge of knowledge
management systems, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 184-93.
Hoe, S.L. (2006), Tacit knowledge, Nonaka and Takeuchi SECI model and informal knowledge
processes, International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 490-502.
Holtshouse, D. (1999), Ten knowledge domains: model of a knowledge-driven company?,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-8.
Hyland, T. and Matlay, H. (1997), Small businesses, training needs and VET provision, Journal
of Education and Work, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-39.
Jarrar, Y.F. (2002), Knowledge management: learning for organisational experience,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 322-8.
Kenny, J. (2006), Strategy and the learning organisation: a maturity model for the formation of
strategy, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 353-68.
Khadra, M.F.A. and Rawabdeh, I.A. (2006), Assessment of development of the learning
organisation concept in Jordanian industrial companies, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 455-74.
TLO
18,3
220
Lam, A. (2000), Tacit knowledge, organisational learning and societal institutions: an integrated
framework, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513.
Lee, J. Sr (2000), Knowledge management: the intellectual revolution, IIE Solutions, Vol. 32
No. 10, pp. 34-7.
Lee, Y.J. and Roth, W.M. (2007), The individual/collective dialectic in the learning organisation,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-107.
Lehr, J.K. and Rice, R.E. (2002), Organisational measures as a form of knowledge management:
a multitheoretic, communication-based exploration, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 12, pp. 1060-73.
Lin, H-F. and Lee, G-G. (2005), Impact of organisational learning and knowledge management
factors on e-business adoption, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-88.
Massingham, P. and Diment, K. (2009), Organisational commitment, knowledge management
interventions, and learning organisation capacity, The Learning Organization, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 122-42.
Newbold, C. and Pharoah, N. (2009), What it means to be a learning organisation, Strategic HR
Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 12-16.
Ng, P.T. (2009), Examining the use of new science metaphors in the learning organisation,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 168-80.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Orange, G., Burke, A., Elliman, T. and Kor, A.L. (2007), CARE: an integrated framework to
support continuous, adaptable, reective evaluation of e-government systems,
International Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Pagano, R. and Paucar-Caceres, A. (2008), Elicitation methods of organisational knowledge:
from the individual to the collective through an integrative approach, Systemic Practice
and Action Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 323-37.
Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H. (2000), Organisational learning and knowledge assets:
an essential partnership, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 184-93.
Polyani, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Putnik, G.D. (2009), Complexity framework for sustainability: an analysis of ve papers,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 261-70.
Raiden, A.B. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006), Human resource development in construction
organisations: an example of a chaordic learning organisation?, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Rebelo, T.M. and Gomes, A.D. (2008), Organisational learning and the learning organisation:
reviewing evolution for prospecting the future, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 294-308.
Rowley, J. (2006), What do we need to know about wisdom?, Management Decision, Vol. 44
No. 9, pp. 1246-57.
Sabherwal, R. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005), Integrating specic knowledge: insights from
the Kennedy Space Center, IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 301-15.
Integrating
knowledge
management
221
Sanchez, R. (2005), Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning: Fundamental
Concepts for Theory and Practice, Working Paper Series No. 2005/3, Lund Institute of
Economic Research, Lund.
Senge, P. (1992), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Century
Business, London.
Shah, H., Eardley, A. and Wood-Harper, T. (2007a), ALTAR: achieving learning through action
research, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 761-70.
Shah, H., Eardley, A. and Wood-Harper, T. (2007b), ALTAR in action: knowledge
management, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 771-9.
Siemieniuch, C.E. and Sinclair, M.A. (2004), CLEVER: a process framework for knowledge cycle
management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 Nos
11/12, pp. 1104-25.
Simatupang, T.M. and White, A.J. (1998), A policy resolution model for knowledge acquisition
in quality management, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 767-79.
Smith, P.A.C. (2008), The learning organisation turns 15: a retrospective, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 441-8.
Szulanski, G. (2000), The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness,
Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27.
Theriou, G.N. and Chatzoglou, P.D. (2009), Exploring the best HRM practices-performance
relationship: an empirical approach, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 614-46.
Toften, K. and Olsen, S.O. (2003), Export market information use, organisational knowledge,
and rm performance: a conceptual framework, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 95-110.
van Eijnatten, F. (2004), Chaordic systems thinking: some suggestions for a complexity
framework to inform a learning organisation, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 430-49.
van Eijnatten, F.M. and Putnik, G.D. (2004a), Chaordic systems thinking for learning
organisations, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 413-94.
van Eijnatten, F.M. and Putnik, G.D. (2004b), Chaos, complexity, learning and the learning
organisations: towards a chaordic enterprise, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 418-29.
van Eijnatten, F.M., Putnik, G.D. and Sluga, A. (2007), Chaordic systems thinking for novelty in
contemporary manufacturing, CIRP Annals, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 447-50.
Walczak, S. (2008), Knowledge management and organisational learning: an international
research perspective, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 486-94.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2003), Organisational learning: a critical review, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1998), Dimensions of the Learning Organisation Questionnaire,
Partners for the Learning Organisation, Warwick, RI.
Weldy, T.G. (2009), Learning organisation and transfer: strategies for improving performance,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2005), A model of values and actions for personal knowledge management,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.
TLO
18,3
222
About the authors
Kit Fai Pun is a Professor of Industrial Engineering in the Department of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering at The University of the West Indies. He is presently the
Chairperson of the Technology Management Council of the IEEE Trinidad and Tobago Section.
Professor Pun is a Chartered Engineer in the UK, and a Registered Professional Engineer in
Trinidad and Tobago. His research interests are in the areas of industrial engineering and
engineering management. Kit Fai Pun is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
KitFai.Pun@sta.uwi.edu
Marcia Nathai-Balkissoon is the Enterprise Programme Coordinator at the National Training
Agency in Trinidad and Tobago. She holds a BSc degree in Industrial Engineering and an MSc
degree in Engineering Management. Ms Nathai-Balkissoon is a Registered Engineer in Trinidad
and Tobago, and is a research student pursuing a PhD in Industrial Engineering at The
University of the West Indies. Her research interests are in the areas of industrial engineering
and organisational learning.
Integrating
knowledge
management
223
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.