.

Knowledge management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Content management or Information management.

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You
can assist by editing it. (June 2015)
Knowledge management (KM) is the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively
using organizational knowledge.[1] It refers to a multi-disciplined approach to achieving
organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge.[2]
An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the
fields of business administration, information systems, management, and library andinformation
sciences.[3][4] More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include
information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy.[5] Several Universities
now offer dedicated Master of Science degrees in Knowledge Management.
Many large companies, public institutions and non-profit organisations have resources dedicated
to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their business strategy, information technology, or human
resource management departments.[6] Several consulting companies provide strategy and advice
regarding KM to these organisations.[6]
Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational objectives such as improved
performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration
and continuous improvement of the organisation.[7] KM efforts overlap with organisational
learning and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of
knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge.[2][8] It is an
enabler of organisational learning.[9][10]
Contents
[hide]

History[edit]

1 History

2 Research
o

2.1 Dimensions

2.2 Strategies

2.3 Motivations

3 KM Technologies

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

Knowledge management efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions,

formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring
programs.[2][10] With increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century,
specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge bases, expert systems,knowledge
repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer-supported cooperative
work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts.[2]
In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced; it refers to the management
of knowledge at the individual level.[11]
In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge
management dimensions of strategy, process, and measurement.[12][13] Key lessons learned
include people and the cultural norms which influence their behaviors are the most critical
resources for successful knowledge creation, dissemination, and application; cognitive, social,
and organizational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management
strategy; and measurement, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the
learning process and to drive cultural change.[13] In short, knowledge management programs can
yield impressive benefits to individuals and organizations if they are purposeful, concrete, and
action-oriented.

Research[edit]
KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s.[14] It was initially supported solely by
practitioners, when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world's firstChief Knowledge
Officer (CKO).[15] Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating KM long
before that.[2] The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximize the intangible assets of their
organisations.[2] Gradually, CKOs became interested in practical and theoretical aspects of KM,
and the new research field was formed.[16]Discussion of the KM idea has been taken up by
academics, such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi
University), Thomas H. Davenport(Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University).[3][17] In
2001, Thomas A. Stewart, former editor at Fortune magazine and subsequently the editor
of Harvard Business Review, published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual
capital in organisations.[18] Since its establishment, the KM discipline has been gradually moving
towards academic maturity.[2] First, there is a trend toward higher cooperation among academics;
particularly, there has been a drop in single-authored publications. Second, the role of
practitioners has changed.[16] Their contribution to academic research has been dramatically
declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 (Serenko et al.
2010).[19]
A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exist; approaches vary by author and school. [16]
[20]
As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and
practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that

enhance knowledge sharing and creation.[21][22]

Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be

designed to facilitate knowledge processes best. [6]

Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity,

knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive
system akin to a natural ecosystem.[23][24]

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include people, processes,

technology (or) culture, structure, technology, depending on the specific perspective(Spender &
Scherer 2007). Different KM schools of thought include lenses through which KM can be viewed
and explained, to include:

community of practice [25]

social network analysis[26]

intellectual capital (Bontis & Choo 2002)

information theory (McInerney 2002)[15]

complexity science[27]

constructivism (Nanjappa & Grant 2003)[28]

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned (Ferguson 2005)
with action research suggested as having more relevance (Andriessen 2004) and the need to
translate the findings presented in academic journals to a practice (Booker, Bontis & Serenko
2008).[12][12][29][30]

Dimensions[edit]
Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[10] One
proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit
knowledge and explicit knowledge.[27] Tacit knowledge represents internalized knowledge that an
individual may not be consciously aware of, such as how he or she accomplishes particular
tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the
individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to
others. (Alavi & Leidner 2001).[16] Similarly, Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe content and
relational perspectives of knowledge and knowledge management as two fundamentally different
epistemological perspectives.[31] The content perspective suggest that knowledge is easily stored
because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognizes the contextual and
relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside of the
specific location where the knowledge is developed. [31]

The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi.

Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit
knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to
internalize and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.
[6][32]
Subsequent research into KM suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and
explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is
self-contradictory.[11] Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into
information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads) (Serenko & Bontis 2004).[11] Later on, Ikujiro
Nonaka proposed a model (SECI for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization)
which considers a spiraling knowledge process interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit
knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995).[33] In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which
implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 'reinternalized' into implicit knowledge.[33] More recently, together with Georg von Krogh and Sven

Voelpel, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge
conversion forwards (Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel 2006);[34] (Nonaka, von Krogh & 2009).[4]
A second proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes
between embedded knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information
system may have knowledge embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a
learned capability of a human body's nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002).[35]
A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between
the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of
"established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.[31][36] Collaborative
environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used
for both knowledge creation and transfer.[36]

Strategies[edit]
Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities.
[37]
Organisations have tried knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission
mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans.[38] Considerable
controversy exists over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has
emerged.[7]
One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy). [7][39] In such an
instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge
repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals
have provided to the repository.[39] This is commonly known as the Codification approach to KM.[39]
Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated
with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy).[7][39] In such an instance, expert
individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this (Snowden
2002).[27] This is commonly known as the Personalisation approach to KM.
Hansen et al. propose a simple framework, distinguishing two opposing KM strategies:
codification and personalization.[40] Codification focuses on collecting and storing codified
knowledge in previously designed electronic databases to make it accessible to the organisation.
[41]
Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge. [42] In contrast, the
personalization strategy aims at encouraging individuals to share their knowledge directly.
[41]
Information technology plays a less important role, as it is only supposed to facilitate
communication and knowledge sharing among members of an organisation.
Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include: [7][23][27]

Knowledge Sharing (fostering a culture that encourages the

sharing of information, based on the concept that knowledge is
not irrevocable and should be shared and updated to remain
relevant)

Storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)

Cross-project learning

After action reviews

Knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a

company accessible by all)

Communities of practice

Expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the

experts)

Expert Systems (knowledge seeker responds to one or more

specific questions to reach knowledge in a repository)

Best practice transfer

Knowledge fairs

Competence management (systematic evaluation and planning

of competences of individual organisation members)

Proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can

be either conducive or obstructive to knowledge sharing)

Master-apprentice relationship

Collaborative technologies (groupware, etc.)

Knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc.)

Measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making

explicit knowledge for companies)

Knowledge brokers (some organisational members take on

responsibility for a specific "field" and act as first reference on
whom to talk about a specific subject)

Social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc.)

Inter-project knowledge transfer

Motivations[edit]
There are a number of claims as to the motivation leading organisations to undertake a KM
effort.[43] Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:[27]

Making available increased knowledge content in

the development and provision of products and services

Achieving shorter new product development cycles

Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning

Leveraging the expertise of people across the organisation

Increasing network connectivity between internal and external

individuals

Managing business environments and allowing employees to

obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work

Solving intractable or wicked problems

Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the

workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by
key individuals or stored in repositories)

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in
this field may help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM
help determine the success or failure of such efforts (Wilson 2002).[44] Knowledge
sharing remains a challenging issue for knowledge management, while there is no clear
agreement barriers may include time issues for knowledge works, the level of trust, lack of
effective support technologies and culture (Jennex 2008).[45]

KM Technologies[edit]
Knowledge Management (KM) technology can be divided into the following general categories:

Groupware
Groupware refers to technologies that facilitate collaboration
and sharing of organizational information. One of the earliest
very successful products in this category wasLotus Notes.
Notes provided tools for threaded discussions, sharing of
documents, organization wide uniform email, etc.

Workflow
Workflow tools allow the representation of processes
associated with the creation, use, and maintenance
of organizational knowledge. For example the process to
create and utilize forms and documents within an
organization. For example, a workflow system can do things
such as send notifications to appropriate supervisors when a
new document has been produced and is waiting their
approval.
Content/Document Management
Content/Document Management systems are systems
designed to automate the process of creating web content
and/or documents within an organization. The various roles
required such as editors, graphic designers, writers, and
producers can be explicitly modeled along with the various
tasks in the process and validation criteria for moving from
one step to another. All this information can be used to
automate and control the process. Commercial vendors of
these tools started to start either as tools to primarily support
documents (e.g., Documentum) or as tools designed to
support web content (e.g., Interwoven) but as the Internet
grew these functions merged and most vendors now perform
both functions, management of web content and of
documents. As Internet standards became adopted within
most organization Intranets andExtranets the distinction
between the two essentially went away.
Enterprise Portals
Enterprise Portals are web sites that aggregate information
across the entire organization or for groups within the
organization such as project teams.

 eLearning
eLearning technology enables organizations to create
customized training and education software. This can
include lesson plans, monitoring progress against learning
goals, online classes, etc. eLearning technology enables
organizations to significantly reduce the cost of training and
educating their members. As with most KM technology in the
business world this was most useful for companies that
employ knowledge workers; highly trained staff with areas of
deep expertise such as the staff of a consulting firm. Such
firms spend a significant amount on the continuing education
of their employees and even have their own internal full-time
schools and internal education staff.
Scheduling and planning
Scheduling and planning tools automate the creation and
maintenance of an organization's schedule: scheduling
meetings,notifying people of a meeting, etc. An example of a
well known scheduling tool is Microsoft Outlook. The
planning aspect can integrate with project management tools
such as Microsoft Project. Some of the earliest successful
uses of KM technology in the business world were the
development of these types of tools, for example online
versions of corporate "yellow pages" with listing of contact
info and relevant knowledge and work history.[21]
Telepresence
Telepresence technology enables individuals to have virtual
meetings rather than having to be in the same place.
Videoconferencing is the most obvious example.
These categories are neither rigidly
defined nor exhaustive. Workflow for
example is a significant aspect of a
content or document management
system and most content and
document management systems have
tools for developing enterprise portals.[7]
[46]

One of the most important trends in KM

technology was the adoption of Internet
standards. Original KM technology
products such as Lotus Notes defined
their own proprietary formats for email,
documents, forms, etc. The explosive
growth of the Internet drove most
vendors to abandon proprietary formats
and adopt Internet formats such as
HTML, HTTP, and XML. In addition,
open source and freeware tools for the
creation of blogs and wikis now enable
capabilities that used to require
expensive commercial tools to be
available for little or no cost.[30][47]
One of the most important ongoing
developments in KM technology is

adoption of tools that enable

organizations to work at the semantic
level.[48] Many of these tools are being
developed as part of the Semantic
Web.[49] For example,
the Stanford Protege Ontology Editor.

See also[edit]

Customer knowledge

Electronic Journal of Knowledge

Management

Ignorance management

Information management

Journal of Knowledge Management

Journal of Knowledge Management

Practice
Journals

Knowledge Cafe

Knowledge community

Knowledge ecosystem

Knowledge engineering

Knowledge management software

Knowledge modeling

Knowledge transfer

Knowledge translation

Legal case management

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Davenport, Thomas H.

(1994). "Saving IT's Soul: Human
Centered Information
Management". Harvard Business
Review 72 (2): 119131.

2.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g "Introduction

to Knowledge

Management". www.unc.edu.
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Archived from the
original on March 19, 2007.
Retrieved11 September 2014.
3.

^ Jump up to:a b Nonaka, Ikujiro

(1991). "The knowledge creating
company". Harvard Business
Review69 (6): 96104.

4.

^ Jump up to:a b Nonaka, Ikujiro;

von Krogh, Georg (2009). "Tacit
Knowledge and Knowledge
Conversion: Controversy and
Advancement in Organizational
Knowledge Creation
Theory".Organization
Science 20 (3): 635
652. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412.

5.

Jump up^ Bellinger,

Gene. "Mental Model
Musings". Systems Thinking Blog.
Retrieved 18 April2013.

6.

^ Jump up to:a b c d Addicot,

Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie,
Ewan (2006). "Networks,
Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management: NHS
Cancer Networks". Public Money
& Management 26 (2): 87
94. doi:10.1111/j.14679302.2006.00506.x.

7.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Gupta,

Jatinder; Sharma, Sushil
(2004). Creating Knowledge
Based Organizations. Boston:
Idea Group Publishing. ISBN 159140-163-1.

8.

Jump up^ Maier, R.

(2007). Knowledge Management
Systems: Information And
Communication Technologies for
Knowledge Management (3rd
edition). Berlin: Springer.

9.

Jump up^ Sanchez, R (1996)

Strategic Learning and Knowledge
Management, Wiley, Chichester

10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sanchez, R.

(1996). Strategic Learning and
Knowledge Management.
Chichester: Wiley.
11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Wright, Kirby
(2005). "Personal knowledge

management: supporting
individual knowledge worker
performance". Knowledge
Management Research and
Practice 3 (3): 156
165. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8
500061.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Booker, Lorne;
Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander
(2008). "The relevance of
knowledge management and
intellectual capital
research". Knowledge and
Process Management 15 (4): 235
246. doi:10.1002/kpm.314.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b Morey, Daryl;
Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham,
Bhavani (2002). Knowledge
Management: Classic and
Contemporary Works. MIT Press.
p. 451. ISBN 0-262-13384-9.
14. Jump up^ McInerney, Claire
(2002). "Knowledge Management
and the Dynamic Nature of
Knowledge". Journal of the
American Society for Information
Science and Technology 53(12):
10091018. do
i:10.1002/asi.10109.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b "Information
Architecture and Knowledge
Management". Kent State
University. Retrieved 18
April 2013.
16. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bray,
David. "SSRN-Literature Review
Knowledge Management
Research at the Organizational
Level". Papers.ssrn.com.
Retrieved 18 April 2013.
17. Jump up^ Davenport,
Tom. "Enterprise 2.0: The New,
New Knowledge
Management?". Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
18. Jump up^ Stewart, Thomas A.
(1998). Intellectual Capital: The
New Wealth of Organizations.
Crown Business
Publishers. ISBN 0385483813.
19. Jump up^ Serenko, Alexander;
Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne;
Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie,

Timothy (2010). "A scientometric

analysis of knowledge
management and intellectual
capital academic literature (1994
2008)". Journal of Knowledge
Management 14 (1): 13
23.doi:10.1108/136732710110155
34.
20. Jump up^ Langton Robbins, N. S.
(2006). Organizational Behaviour
(Fourth Canadian Edition).
Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b Alavi, Maryam;
Leidner, Dorothy E.
(1999). "Knowledge management
systems: issues, challenges, and
benefits". Communications of the
AIS 1 (2).
22. Jump up^ Rosner, D.; Grote, B.;
Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke,
O. (1998). "From natural language
documents to sharable product
knowledge: a knowledge
engineering approach". In
Borghoff, Uwe M.; Pareschi,
Remo. Information technology for
knowledge management. Springer
Verlag. pp. 3551.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b Bray,
David. "SSRN-Knowledge
Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens
for Organizations Confronting
Hyperturbulent
Environments". Papers.ssrn.com.
24. Jump up^ Carlson Marcu
Okurowsk, Lynn; Marcu, Daniel;
Okurowsk, Mary Ellen. "Building a
Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the
Framework of Rhetorical Structure
Theory" (PDF). University of
Pennsylvania. Retrieved 19
April 2013.
25. Jump up^ "TeacherBridge:
Knowledge Management in
Communities of Practice" (PDF).
Virginia Tech. Retrieved 18
April 2013.
26. Jump up^ Groth, Kristina. "Using
social networks for knowledge
management" (PDF). Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden. Retrieved 18 April 2013.

27. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Snowden,

Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of
Knowing Paradox and
Descriptive Self
Awareness". Journal of
Knowledge Management, Special
Issue 6 (2): 100
111.doi:10.1108/13673270210424
639.
28. Jump up^ Wyssusek,
Boris. "Knowledge Management A Sociopragmatic Approach
(2001)".CiteSeerX. Retrieved 18
April 2013.
29. Jump up^ Ferguson, J. (2005).
"Bridging the gap between
research and
practice". Knowledge
Management for Development
Journal 1 (3): 4654.
30. ^ Jump up to:a b Andriessen,
Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the
rigor-relevance dilemma in
intellectual capital research". The
Learning Organization 11 (4/5):
393
401.doi:10.1108/09696470410538
288.
31. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hayes, M.;
Walsham, G. (2003). "Knowledge
sharing and ICTs: A relational
perspective". In Easterby-Smith,
M.; Lyles, M.A. The Blackwell
Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge
Management. Malden, MA:
Blackwell. pp. 5477. ISBN 978-0631-22672-7.
32. Jump up^ "Rhetorical Structure
Theory Website". RST.
Retrieved 19 April 2013.
33. ^ Jump up to:a b Nonaka, Ikujiro;
Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The
knowledge creating company:
how Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
p. 284. ISBN 978-0-19-509269-1.
34. Jump up^ Nonaka, I.; von Krogh,
G. & Voelpel S. (2006).
"Organizational knowledge
creation theory: Evolutionary paths
and future
advances". Organization

Studies 27 (8): 1179

1208.doi:10.1177/0170840606066
312.
35. Jump up^ Sensky, Tom (2002).
"Knowledge
Management". Advances in
Psychiatric Treatment 8 (5): 387
395. doi:10.1192/apt.8.5.387.
36. ^ Jump up to:a b "SSRNExploration, Exploitation, and
Knowledge Management
Strategies in Multi-Tier
Hierarchical Organizations
Experiencing Environmental
Turbulence by David Bray".
Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved 15
January 2010.
37. Jump up^ Bontis, Nick; Choo,
Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic
Management of Intellectual
Capital and Organizational
Knowledge. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19513866-X.
38. Jump up^ Benbasat, Izak; Zmud,
Robert (1999). "Empirical research
in information systems: The
practice of relevance". MIS
Quarterly 23 (1): 3
16. doi:10.2307/249403.JSTOR 2
49403.
39. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Knowledge
Management for Data
Interoperability" (PDF).
Retrieved 18 April2013.
40. Jump up^ Hansen et al., 1999
41. ^ Jump up to:a b Smith (2004), p. 7
42. Jump up^ Hall (2006), pp. 119f
43. Jump up^ Alavi, Maryam;
Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001).
"Review: Knowledge Management
and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations
and Research Issues". MIS
Quarterly 25 (1): 107
136. doi:10.2307/3250961. JSTO
R 3250961.
44. Jump up^ Wilson, T. D. (2002).
"The nonsense of 'knowledge

management'". Information
Research8 (1).
45. Jump up^ Jennex, M.E.
(2008). Knowledge Management:
Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,
and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. pp. 13808. ISBN 9781599049335.
46. Jump up^ Rao, Madanmohan
(2005). Knowledge Management
Tools and Techniques. Elsevier.
pp. 342. ISBN 0-7506-7818-6.
47. Jump up^ Calvin, D. Andrus
(2005). "The Wiki and the Blog:
Toward a Complex Adaptive
Intelligence Community". Studies
in
Intelligence 49 (3). SSRN 755904.
48. Jump up^ Capozzi, Marla M.
(2007). "Knowledge Management
Architectures Beyond
Technology".First Monday 12 (6).
49. Jump up^ Berners-Lee, Tim;
Hendler, James; Lassila, Ora (May
17, 2001). "The Semantic Web A
new form of Web content that is
meaningful to computers will
unleash a revolution of new
possibilities". Scientific American.

External links[edit]

Knowledge management at DMOZ

Knowledge@work community

Know

Personal knowledge management

Knowledge worker
Main articles

Intellectual capital
Chief knowledge officer
Collective intelligence

Related to electronic systems

Related

Journals

Log in

Edit
View history
Go

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page
Tools

Knowledge

Knowledge Management Research and Practice

Categories:
Knowledge management

Information systems

Management science

Groupware

Business terms

Hypertext

ITIL

Read

Community of practice

NDL: 00947301

Navigation menu
Create account

Knowledge management software

GND: 4561842-2

Authority control

Enterprise content management

Article
Talk


What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version
Languages

Afrikaans

Catal

etina

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Espaol

Franais

Gky

Hrvatski

Bahasa Indonesia

slenska

Italiano

Latvieu

Lietuvi

Magyar

Polski

Portugus

Romn

Slovenina

Suomi

Svenska

/tatara

Ting Vit

Edit links

This page was last modified on 16 July 2015, at

00:40.

Text is available under the Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia
is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view