Knowledge Management Life Cycle Model

Based on PDSA for Agile Companies

Raluca Dovleac1(B) , Andreea Ionica1 , Monica Leba1 , and Alvaro Rocha2

1 University of Petrosani, 332006 Petrosani, Romania
raluca.dovleac@yahoo.com
2 University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract. The paper analyzes the ways in which knowledge management con-
tributes to the success of today’s companies and leads to an increase in their effec-
tiveness and ability to remain competitive, and furthermore, the tools and practices
that they use for their knowledge management process with the role of provid-
ing a framework for their knowledge management, which is based on a proposed
knowledge management life cycle, inspired by the Agile System Development
Life cycle. For this, in the paper, the current life cycle models used in knowledge
management have been analyzed, along with the particularities and necessities of
agile companies, and based on this, a life cycle model for the knowledge manage-
ment of agile companies has been proposed, and furthermore, the possibility of
integrating quality management tools within each stage of the life cycle has been
analyzed, and a set of quality tools has been proposed in the context of the life
cycle model.

Keywords: Life cycle · Knowledge management · Agile · Quality

1 Introduction
The current competitive layout has pushed companies of all sizes and from all industries
to implement strategic practices in order to ensure their success both in the short and
long run.
This paper is focused on addressing two main axes of interest that companies are
covering: the implementation of agile practices and methodologies, and thus, becoming
agile companies, and the focus on knowledge management and knowledge management
systems within them.
Knowledge management refers to the set of information, intellectual capital and com-
munication that a company has to manage in order to benefit from it, and it takes the form
of strategies, processes and technology used. This information can be tacit – meaning that
it hasn’t been captured or transposed in a physical form, or explicit – meaning that the
company transposed it in a physical form. Some of the identified benefits of implementing
a knowledge management system within a company relate to its contribution in achiev-
ing both customer and employee satisfaction, enhancing communication and the results
obtained from project management practices [1].
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Á. Rocha et al. (Eds.): WorldCIST 2020, AISC 1159, pp. 84–92, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45688-7_9
 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Model Based on PDSA for Agile Companies 85

Another important aspect that emerged in the context of a company seeking to imple-
ment a knowledge management system is the possibility of ensuring the quality of this
process’ inputs, outputs and practices. This, in turn, led to studies concerned with the
role that quality management currently plays in the context of knowledge management
and the possibility of extending its influence towards this field in order to obtain better
results.
Given this aspect, the paper analyses the set of recommendations in the field of
knowledge management regarding quality management practices, in order to provide a
model that integrates this practices to ensure a competitive advantage.
Lastly, the paper is concerned with the role that agile companies play in today’s
society, their necessities and aims at adapting the proposed model to fit their requirements
and provide a practical support system for those agile companies looking to implement
a knowledge management system.

2 Literature Review

Motivated by the necessity of remaining competitive and ensuring their effectiveness,

many organizations are pursuing the area of knowledge management, which, although
not new, it now shows an increase in implementation and usage [2–4].
A large number of definitions aiming to cover the topic of knowledge management
exist [5], concluding that a general aspect of knowledge management consists mainly of
its characteristics, such as: the usage or transfer of knowledge does not lead to its con-
sumption and unavailability, the ability of using knowledge is scarce and the most impor-
tant source of knowledge for a company is its personnel [6]. The last aspect relates to how
knowledge is the result of human activities, typically empirical reflection and experience
and can be embodied in multiple forms, such as: rules, concepts, stories, etc. [7].
Knowledge management includes activities which are meant to capture, convert,
transfer and measure knowledge in a social context [8]. In the context of the human
resources involved in the process of knowledge management, and their contribution
with intellectual capital, knowledge assets have been referenced also as being intellectual
assets [9].
Knowledge management can therefore be seen as a process [5] that is concerned
with acquiring, storing, developing, using, disseminating and transferring information
and expertise with the role of improving business performance [10], the decision making
process and facilitate innovation and improvement [11].
Given the fact that knowledge management is most often perceived as a process,
similarly to other processes, it inhabits a life cycle, known in theory as Knowledge
management life cycle. Solid works in the field are covered by Wiig [12], McElroy
[13], Bukowitz and Williams [14] and Meyer and Zack [15], but new approaches have
emerged throughout time, such as those of: Evans et al. [9], Sağsan [16], Stenholm
et al. [17] looking to adapt the knowledge management life cycle to the requirements
of today’s companies. A comparison in terms of common aspects and differences of the
foundational approaches in knowledge management can be observed in Table 1.
86 R. Dovleac et al.

Table 1. Comparison of knowledge management life cycle stages

Create Acquire Refine Store Use Transfer

Wiig [12]

McElroy [13]

Bukowitz &
Williams [14]
Zack [15]

As it can be observed from Table 1, all four knowledge management life cycle
approaches put an emphasis on the acquisition and usage of information stage, but
take different stands when it comes to phases such as: knowledge creation, storing and
transfer.
Today’s companies are marked by significant changes in the market and consumer
preferences and options that push them to adapt in order to remain effective and com-
petitive. In this context, companies are required to show agility and effectiveness in
responding to changes in the market and customer preferences, which in turn, leads to
redesigning a company’s profile to be considered an agile company [18]. Agile compa-
nies show an embracing attitude towards changing customer demands and implement
adaptive responses to these changes [19].
Agile methodologies have been initially developed and implement in small teams
working on single projects, but since, have shown a supportive implementation in
companies of all sizes given their noted benefits [20–22].
Agile methodologies are characterized by an iterative approach to product develop-
ment, short iteration periods, a high degree of flexibility and adaptability to changes in
requirements [23, 24]. The development life cycle for the Agile development approach
captures the idea of iterative development and reacting to customer requirements. A
typical example of the Agile System Development Life cycle (SDLC) can be observed
in Fig. 1.
Figure 1 depicts the Agile SDLC, highlighting the particularities of this develop-
ment approach, such as the iterative development realized through the help of short
iteration times, and the possibility of transitioning from the construction phase back to
the initiation one, based on customer feedback.
An interesting aspect that emerged in the analysis of the role that knowledge manage-
ment plays in today’s companies, is related to the relationship between quality manage-
ment and knowledge management, in the form of their impact on the knowledge transfer
[25], knowledge creation [26], using a maturity model for quality improvement in knowl-
edge management [27] and the possibility of integrating knowledge management in the
Total Quality Management (TQM) practices [28].
 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Model Based on PDSA for Agile Companies 87

Fig. 1. Agile SDLC

3 Research Context
Given how the number of companies that implement or look to implement knowledge
management into their operations has increased, the need for a strategy or framework
that would facilitate the implementation of knowledge management is born [9].
The current paper aims to help provide a model for a knowledge management life
cycle that takes into account the requirements of today’s companies, putting an emphasis
on agile companies and the important role of quality management plays in obtaining and
ensuring their competitiveness and success. In designing the model for the knowledge
management life cycle, the already existing models have been analyzed and adaptations
have been made in order to fit the requirements of agile companies.

4 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Based on Agile SDLC

The proposed model integrates quality management practices and tools in the form of
shaping and adapting the stages of the knowledge management life cycle in the Plan
Do Study Act (PDSA) cycle in order to highlight the relationship between each stage of
the knowledge management life cycle and the particularities of the PDSA cycle, and to
provide a set of methodological tools that could improve the quality of the knowledge
management process.
88 R. Dovleac et al.

The proposed model consists of six stages for the knowledge management life cycle
as follows: Create, Acquire, Refine, Store, Use and Transfer. The life cycle stages have
been selected and adapted based on the already existing models and the necessities of
agile companies. Figure 2 shows how these stages of the life cycle can be integrated and
represented with the help of the PDSA.

Fig. 2. Stages of the proposed knowledge management life cycle

Given the fact the proposed model is aimed at meeting the requirements of agile
companies, it has been adapted to fit the stages of the Agile SDLC, as shown in Fig. 3
below.

Fig. 3. PDSA cycle model for Agile SDLC stages

 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Model Based on PDSA for Agile Companies 89

The Agile SDLC approach, consisting of six development stages, can be integrated
in the PDSA cycle due to the cyclic nature of the life cycle which is similar to the PDSA
cycle model. Therefore, in the Plan stage, the corresponding stages of the Agile SDLC
are: Concept and Initiation; in the Do stage, the corresponding stage is the Construction
one; in the Study stage, the corresponding stage is Transition, and in the Act stage of the
PDSA cycle, the corresponding Agile SDLC stages are: Production and Retirement. This
model captures the iterative nature of the development approach and the PDSA cycle.
Of course, each stage contains one or more aspects concerned with the other stages,
such as: the planning phase covers all development stages, from the concept/initiation
one, to the retirement and/ or production, where the team decides what to do next,
based on the information gathered so far. In the context of the proposed model, the
knowledge management life cycle has been adapted to the PDSA cycle, one of the
aspects regarding this implying that the development team uses an overview in order to
sketch the requirements of each stage of the PDSA cycle, while continuing to work in
an Agile SDLC methodology.
Based on this, and taking into account the recommendations for the possibility of
implementing quality management tools and practices in the knowledge management
process, the paper presents a set of quality management tools that could be implemented
in each stage of the knowledge management life cycle, integrated in the PDSA model
previously proposed. The list of quality tools, along with the life cycle stages in which
they are recommended can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Quality tools integrated in the knowledge management PDSA model

PLAN DO STUDY ACT

Ishikawa
Checksheet
Control chart
Histogram
Pareto
Scatter
Flowchart

The quality management tools presented have been selected based on their proven
benefits in implementation, ease of use, and familiarity for those who have no previous
significant experience of working the field of quality management or with quality man-
agement tools. The presented tools, are considered to be the basic set of quality control
tools which can be used in order to address quality related issues in companies.
As it can be seen from Table 2, the seven basic or classic quality management tools
have been used and integrated in the PDSA cycle in order to provide a model that
allows the knowledge management life cycle with methodological support regarding
the possibility of improvement. Each stage of the PDSA has at least a number of three
quality management tools that can be used therefore highlighting the possibility of
implementation.
90 R. Dovleac et al.

5 Results and Conclusions

The analysis of the requirements of agile companies, and the particularities of the pro-
posed knowledge management life cycle, designed based on the already existing the-
oretical background, allowed the development of a knowledge management life cycle
model adapted for the requirements of today’s companies and which takes into account
not only their particularities and necessities but also the best practices in the field of
knowledge management and the added benefits of quality management through the help
of the implementation of quality management tools in the proposed model.
The model, shown in Fig. 4, addresses the requirements of agile companies, by
integrating an iterative approach, which allows flexibility and adaptability according to
requirements. Furthermore, the model is based on the Agile SDLC approach, in order
to facilitate the integration and usability of the model for agile companies.

Fig. 4. Knowledge management life cycle model for agile companies

Building on top of the already existing model for knowledge management life cycles,
the Agile SDLC and the recommendations regarding the possibility of implementing
quality management practices in order to improve the quality of the knowledge creation
and transfer processes, a knowledge management life cycle model based on the PDSA
cycle has been designed and proposed in the current paper. The possibility of integrating
quality management tools in the proposed model has also been explored and detailed,
and can therefore be observed in Fig. 5.
The approach used to assign quality tools to each stage of the proposed knowledge
management model is similar to the approach used when assigning Agile SDLC stages to
the PDSA cycle, meaning that although one or more quality tools can be used across all
the stages of the proposed life cycle, the suggested match ensures that the development
team works according to Agile principles, and in a way that maximizes their operations’
efficiency.
As it can be observed from Fig. 5, the “Histogram” and the “Flowchart” quality tools
can be applied throughout the entire life cycle of the proposed mode, the “Ishikawa” and
“Check sheet” tools can be used for all phases except the “Use”, the “Scatter” diagram
 Knowledge Management Life Cycle Model Based on PDSA for Agile Companies 91

Fig. 5. Quality tools for the knowledge management life cycle model

can be used for the “Create”, “Acquire”, “Store” and “Transfer” phases, the “Control
charts” can be used in the “Refine” and “Store” phase and the “Pareto” diagram can be
used in the “Store”, “Use” and “Transfer” phases.
Of course various other quality management tools can be further implemented into
the proposed more, and more so, quality management practices or principles can also be
used and implemented in order to develop the model in accordance with the requirements
and necessities of the companies using it.
Further directions include, but are not limited to the implementation, testing and
adaptation of the proposed model in the case of agile companies, as well as studies regard-
ing the possibility of implementing additional quality management tools and practices
within the model. This could be achieved either by following the path already established
within the paper, and focusing on those quality management tools and techniques which
are considered to be modern, or by looking at business excellence models and total qual-
ity management principles and practices and identifying those factors that could benefit
agile companies in the context of the proposed model.

References
1. Lee, K.-W., Corazon, M., Lanting, L., Rojdamrongratana, M.: Managing customer life cycle
through knowledge management capability: a contextual role of information technology. Total
Qual. Manag. Bus. Excellence 28(13–14), 1559–583 (2017)
2. Birkinshaw, J., Sheehan, T.: Managing the knowledge life cycle. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev.
44(1), 75–83 (2002)
3. de Vasconcelos, J.B., Kimble, C., Carreteiro, P., Rocha, Á.: The application of knowledge
management to software evolution. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37, 1499–1506 (2016)
4. Del Giudice, M., Maggioni, V.: Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge
management within inter-firm networks: a global view. J. Knowl. Manag. 18(5), 841–846
(2014)
92 R. Dovleac et al.

5. Nývlt, V., Prušková, K.: Building information management as a tool for managing knowledge
throughout whole building life cycle. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 245, 042070 (2017)
6. Dalkir, K.: Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Elsevier, Oxford (2013)
7. Lim, M.K., Tseng, M.-L., Tan, K.H., Buib, T.D.: Knowledge management in sustainable sup-
ply chain management: Improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 806–816 (2017)
8. O’Leary, D.E.: Knowledge management across the enterprise resource planning systems life
cycle. Int. J. Account. 3, 99–110 (2002)
9. Evans, M., Dalkir, K., Bidian, C.: A holistic view of the knowledge life cycle: the Knowledge
Management Cycle (KMC) model. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 12(2), 85–97 (2014)
10. Gupta, B., Iyer, L., Aronson, J.: Knowledge management: practices and challenges. Ind.
Manag. Data Syst. 100(1), 17–21 (2000)
11. Earl, M.J.: Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18(1),
215–242 (2001)
12. Wiig, K.: Knowledge management foundations: thinking about thinking. How people and
organizations create, represent and use knowledge. Arlington (1993)
13. McElroy, M.: The knowledge life cycle. In: ICM Conference on KM, Miami (1999)
14. Bukowitz, W., Williams, R.: The Knowledge Management Fieldbook. Prentice Hall, London
(2000)
15. Meyer, M., Zack, M.: The design and implementation of information products. Sloan Manag.
Rev. 37(3), 43–59 (1996)
16. Sağsan, M.: A new life cycle model for processing of knowledge management. In:
International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, İzmir (2006)
17. Stenholm, D., Landahl, J., Bergsjö, D.: Knowledge management life cycle: an individual’s
perspective. In: International Design Conference, Dubrovnik (2014)
18. Bottani, E.: Profile and enablers of agile companies: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 125, 251–261 (2010)
19. Sillitti, A., Ceschi, M., Russo, B., Succi, G.: Managing uncertainty in requirements: a survey
in documentation-driven and agile companies. In: 11th IEEE International Symposium on
Software Metrics, Como (2005)
20. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional
development organizations. IEEE Softw. 22(5), 30–39 (2005)
21. Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: What do we know about agile software development? IEEE Softw.
26(5), 6–9 (2009)
22. Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C.: Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile
transformations: a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 119, 87–108 (2016)
23. Tarafdar, M., Qrunfleh, S.: Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain performance: com-
plementary roles of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 55(4), 925–938 (2017)
24. Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y.Y., Adeleye, E.O., Papadopoulos, T., Kovvuri, D., Geyi, D.G.:
Agile manufacturing: an evolutionary review of practices. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57(15–16), 5154–
5174 (2019)
25. Molina, L.M., Lloréns-Montes, J., Ruiz-Moreno, A.: Relationship between quality manage-
ment practices and knowledge transfer. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 682–701 (2007)
26. Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., Choo, A.S.: Integrating quality
management practices with knowledge creation processes. J. Oper. Manag. 22, 589–607
(2004)
27. Paulzen, O., Doumi, M., Perc, P., Cereijo-Roibas, A.: A maturity model for quality
improvement in knowledge management. In: ACIS Proceedings, vol. 5 (2002)
28. Ooi, K.-B.: TQM and knowledge management: literature review. Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 3(11),
633–643 (2009)