&
Research Article
Towards Framework for Knowledge
Management Implementation
Ravi Shankar
1
* and Amol Gupta
2
1
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India
2
GE Software Systems, Block A, First Floor South Wing, Cyber Gateways, HITEC City, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
The implementation of knowledge management (KM) in an organization involves the integra-
tion of knowledge from the domains of strategy, structure, processes, and technology. These
domains are generally underpinned—when assimilating roadmaps for holistic KM implemen-
tation—with standard KM models in the literature. The pioneering models manifesting the
holistic ‘growth’ of knowledge in an organization are generally used to underpin the
knowledge-based segregation of organizational structure. However, some authors take a criti-
cal view of such theoretical models, and instead suggest the knowledge process-based models
manifesting the ‘circulation’ of knowledge as being a more practical approach to KM imple-
mentation. This paper takes the implementation-oriented approach further, and modifies
and integrates the fundamental aspects of KM advocated in these models resulting in the crea-
tion of an integrated KM model that renders a practical framework for the broad knowledge
processes across the organization. The essence of the proposed integrated model are the
knowledge activities permeating an organization, which are categorized in terms of the cyclic
knowledge processes of creation, organization, dissemination, and use of knowledge. These
processes traverse the segregated structure of an enterprise.
It is suggested that a modified knowledge-based segregation of enterprise into individual
and group, organization, customer interface, and global enterprise be developed based on
the cyclic knowledge processes. Further, based on the proposed integrated model, an imple-

research landscape are related to ‘personalization’
and ‘codification’ of knowledge (Hansen et al.,
1999). In the personalization strategy, knowledge
is closely tied to the person who created it
and disseminated through person-to-person
knowledge sharing networks. In a codification
strategy, a knowledge object is developed by
removing customer or project sensitive informa-
tion and stored in repositories for later use. A
company deploys a combination of these strate-
gies focusing on one and using the other in a sup-
port function. Addressing the strategy, Mentzas
et al. (2001) suggested that a holistic conceptual
framework be created to provide a roadmap for
managers in ensuring integrity in KM implemen-
tation efforts. The roadmap suggests that success-
ful KM implementation is a truly holistic venture
that should leverage the knowledge assets and
employee networks by integrating the four aspects
of strategy, culture, processes,andKM system.The
generic roadmap for KM implementation is
outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows, as part of the generic strategic
plan for KM implementation, the knowledge assets
at the core that need to be integrated with the
knowledge sharing networks/activities. The design
and categorization of the knowledge sharing activ-
ities depends on the structure and processes of the
organization. These activities are generally struc-
tured at the level of individual, team, organization,

linkage for the proposed model, the pragmatic
knowledge activities in an organization are then
categorized in accordance with the model (Section
Integrated KM Model). Finally, an implementation
framework is outlined using the proposed integrated
model to suggest future research direction for KM
implementation frameworks (Section Knowledge
Activities, Processes and Cycles).
KM MODELS IN LITERATURE
Many KM models with different approaches and
mindsets have been proposed in literature. McA-
dam and McCreedy (1999) have identified three
broad categories of KM models, namely knowledge
category models, intellectual capital models, and
socially constructed models.
1. Knowledge category models: These models advo-
cate categorization of knowledge into discrete
forms like codified and uncodified knowledge,
Assets
Group
Processes
Structure
Strategy
Individual
Interorganization
Organization
Systems
General strategic plan for
holistic KM implementation
Fundamental, theoretical

zational knowledge in correspondence to its intel-
lectual assets. For example, intellectual capital can
be segregated into human, structural, and custo-
mer assets (Chase, 1997a; Roos and Roos, 1997).
3. Socially constructed models: These models discuss
KM focusing on the various knowledge pro-
cesses (Demerest, 1997). Demerest’s model
focuses on the knowledge processes in an orga-
nization such as the construction of knowledge,
embodiment of constructed knowledge, disse-
mination of the espoused knowledge, and
ultimately the use of knowledge for business
advantages in regard to organizational outputs.
The essence of these models is to identify
the simple flow of knowledge within and
across knowledge processes. The knowledge
processes may simply be characterized as crea-
tion, organization, dissemination, and use of
knowledge.
Apart from outlining these three categories
of KM models in literature, McAdam and McCree-
dy (1999) criticize the knowledge category and
intellectual capital models and suggest their inap-
propriateness with respect to KM implementation.
In turn, they advocate the socially constructed
models having a knowledge process-based
approach to have greater suitability for KM imple-
mentation. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) also cri-
ticize the knowledge processes-based (socially
constructed) Demerest (1997) model and augment

gated organizational domains, knowledge assets,
and knowledge processes. We propose a KM
model based on these aspects. However, a modi-
fied perspective to these fundamental aspects is
suggested by augmenting the corresponding stan-
dard KM models in the literature advocating
these aspects. The modified perspective aims at
molding the fundamental aspects to make them
more suitable for KM implementation. In keeping
with this approach, the discussions in the paper
become three-pronged. First, we present a
modified perspective of the KM aspects corre-
sponding to standard KM models in literature to
suit certain implementation and sustainability
criteria. Second, we integrate these implementa-
tion suited KM aspects to synthesize a proposed
integrated KM model. Finally, we propose a
framework for KM implementation underpinned
by the integrated KM model and use it to
suggest a research direction for the development
of KM systems; the coherence of framework to lit-
erature is also discussed in terms of the accor-
dance of the framework to the guidelines for
KM research as suggested by McAdam and
McCreedy (1999).
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Framework for KM Implementation 261
MODIFIED PERSPECTIVE OF
FUNDAMENTAL KM ASPECTS
The three fundamental aspects of KM and the cor-

models
Creation,
organization,
dissemination,
use
Cycle of
knowledge
processes
Socially
constructed
models
Creation,
organization,
dissemination,
use
Organizational
knowledge
segregation based
on ‘‘growth and
expansion’’ aspect
of knowledge
Knowledge
category models
Individual, group,
organization, inter
organization
(customers,
suppliers)
Segregation based
on cycles of

gests a modified knowledge-based organizational
segregation reflected in the Hedlund and Nonaka
(1993) model. The resulting organizational segrega-
tion is followed to suggest corresponding segrega-
tion of knowledge assets. These views are
presented in the following subsections.
Cyclic knowledge processes
Nonaka (1991, 1994) emphasized the critical neces-
sity of sustaining the creation of knowledge in orga-
nizations. Employees are the primary sources of
innovations in an organization; however, there
are several other significant activities that may gen-
erate fresh knowledge. Knowledge managers iden-
tify and set up diverse activities aiming to sustain
knowledge creation. For example, incentives may
be set up to encourage the use of captured knowl-
edge; expertise in new domains may be developed
through recruitment; and valuable information
may be generated in repositories through techni-
ques like data mining (O’Leary, 1998b).
The activities relating to the use of existing
knowledge in the organization primarily support
the creation of new knowledge. Employees use
the learnings and experiences of their peers, from
related projects in past, in their current assign-
ments. In the process, they generate fresh mindsets
and knowledge pertinent to current projects.
Similarly, the mined customer-related data is ana-
lyzed for fraud detection, predicting future
demands of customers, etc. Organization uses cur-

The cyclic knowledge processes-based approach
tends to segregate a knowledge intensive organiza-
tion into different domains, categorized as follows:
 individual and group,
 organization (suppliers, collaborators, competi-
tors),
 customer interface, and
 global enterprise.
This proposed segregation differs from the funda-
mental knowledge-based segregation of organiza-
tion suggested by Hedlund and Nonaka (1993)
model:
 individual,
 group,
 organization, and
 interorganization (customers, suppliers, compe-
titors).
The first domain in the segregated organization
refers to an individual implicitly within his/her
group’s domain. To illustrate, in the process of
creation of knowledge individuals work towards
creation of fresh knowledge using their creativity,
or report exceptional experiences in day-to-day
work as part of the meetings organized by the
group heads. The group to which individuals
belong organizes this knowledge created by the
individuals in accordance to the standardized KM
processes. Processes are also set up to facilitate the
sharing of knowledge among peers in the group;
and this spurs the process of creation of new

knowledge processes of creation, dissemination,
and use in an individual domain when the indivi-
dual may create innovations, indulge in knowledge
sharing and use the knowledge feedback from
peers. From the technological perspective, Persona-
lization and Groupware technology can only support
the knowledge processes in the individual domain
by rendering relevant organization-wide knowl-
edge contextually to each employee in the organi-
zation. Therefore, combining the cyclic approach
with the implementation point of view suggests indi-
vidual to be just a part of a group.
Considering the next segregated domain, the
Hedlund and Nonaka (1993) model advocates sup-
pliers and collaborators working together with cus-
tomers at the interorganization level. However,
following the cyclic approach necessitates consider-
ing suppliers and collaborators at the organization
level. Such a view advocates assembling organiza-
tional knowledge together with the knowledge of
collaborators and suppliers in satisfying the
dynamic demands of customer (Sanchez, 2001b).
This kind of integration is most visible in the
internet-based digital markets where the product
needed by a particular customer may be assembled
from various suppliers depending on the specifica-
tions selected by the customer. The integration is
also evident in the increasing integration of suppli-
ers in the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
implementations of companies. Consultants devel-

processes groups individual and groups at the
same level from an implementation point of
view. It also groups the suppliers or collaborators
along with the organization at the organization
level. The importance of customer-related and
enterprise-wide knowledge suggests separate orga-
nizational segregation for each of these domains.
Considering the third fundamental aspect of KM,
knowledge assets are central to any KM implemen-
tation effort. Mentzas et al. (2001) suggest that,
in essence, KM is working to better manage the
content, quality, value, and transferability of
knowledge assets. We follow, in this paper, a
knowledge asset categorization corresponding to
the segregated domains of organization proposed
above.
Organizational knowledge assets
The organizational segregation proposed in the
previous section suggests the following component
assets of organizational knowledge:
a. knowledge in the form of experiences, expertise
of individuals and groups;
b. knowledge of organization that pervades its
production architectures involving knowledge
gathered from suppliers and collaborators;
knowledge embedded in the IT systems and
pertinent data warehouses and knowledge
bases;
c. knowledge regarding customers; and,
d. knowledge shared in a global enterprise.

the practical aspects that managers may consider
while setting up the knowledge processes in an
organization. Some of these aspects relevant in
the context of this paper are stated. Generally,
knowledge-focused activities already exist in any
knowledge-enabled organization. Knowledge pro-
cesses may then be designed to clearly identify
these activities, enable them and organize them
for effective process integration. Apart from this,
managers need to design processes according to
the theories of KM in order to capture and store
knowledge from various assets and disseminate it
across various departments in the organization.
Moreover, the design of similar activity or process
may vary from one department to another
depending on the functionality and context in
which the knowledge is required. In these cases,
the process should be customized according to
the need(s) in the particular organizational domain.
On this basis, two guidelines are outlined for any
implementation-oriented KM model:
(i) the model should categorize the activities that
constitute knowledge processes, and
(ii) the model should categorize the processes
according to the different domains of the
organization.
To further develop the integrated KM model fol-
lowing these guidelines, the integration of the
implementation-oriented perspectives on KM
(knowledge assets, cyclic knowledge processes

mote reuse of knowledge captured in groups.
Thus, the proposed cyclic approach to knowledge
processes is appropriate in outlining one attribute
of the integrated KM model, that is, the categoriza-
tion of knowledge-focused activities in an organi-
zation.
In the broader context of knowledge processes
that embed the activities, the design of same type
of knowledge process may differ in different
domains/departments of the organization. For
example, in the individual and group domain the
process of organizing knowledge is designed with
aim of capturing day-to-day problematic issues
and pertinent improvisations to address these
issues carried by team members, while same pro-
cesses (relating to the organizing of knowledge) at
the company-wide level are designed with the aim
of capturing the learnings and experiences from
projects successfully completed by the company.
The difference in the design of the same processes
for organizing knowledge in the domains of group
and whole company respectively is due to the dis-
tinct characteristics of knowledge assets in these
domains; that is, tacit knowledge-based improvisa-
tions by team members at the group level, and
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Framework for KM Implementation 265