scholarly journals Gestão da informação e gestão do conhecimento na prática organizacional: análise de estudos de casos Information management and knowledge management in the organizational practice: cases’ studies analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiana Borelli Amorim ◽  
Maria Inês Tomaél
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Organizational Practice ◽  
Corporate University ◽  
Management Knowledge ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Book Knowledge

Estudos sobre gestão de conhecimento (GC) e gestão da informação (GI) vêm sendo apresentados em profusão na literatura. Diversas discussões emergem a respeito das principais divergências e convergências destes conceitos, mas na prática a distinção ainda é bastante confusa. Desta forma, a proposta deste estudo é identificar as principais características de GC e de GI, por meio da literatura e pela análise de estudos de caso de empresas brasileiras apresentados no livro Gestão do Conhecimento no Brasil, organizado por Angeloni (2008). Os resultados demonstram e exemplificam a adoção de várias práticas de gestão como: lista de discussões, universidade corporativa, compartilhamento de conhecimento e experiências, entre outras, que em alguns casos culminaram na Gestão do Conhecimento.AbstractStudies about knowledge management (KM) and information management (IM) have been presented in great quantity in the literature nowadays. There are several discussions regarding the main divergences and convergences of these concepts, but in practice the difference is still quite confused. This way, the proposal of this study is to identify the main characteristics of KM and IM, through the literature review and by analysis of compared Brazilian companies’ casse presented in the book Knowledge Management in Brazil, organized by Angeloni (2008). The results demonstrate and exemplify the adoption of several management practices like: list of discussions, corporate university, knowledge and experiences sharing, among others, that in some cases resulted in Knowledge Management.Keywords: Information management; Knowledge management; Organizational practice

A Model of Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing

2011 ◽  
pp. 284-313
Author(s):  
I-Chieh Hsu ◽  
Yi-Shun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Business Strategy ◽  
Top Management ◽  
Management Knowledge ◽  
Management Processes ◽  
Perceived Environmental Uncertainty ◽  
Policies And Practices

Prior research has reported different knowledge management processes, considering each universally applicable. This article proposes that context influences company knowledge sharing policies and practices and their effectiveness. Through a literature review, a model of intraorganizational knowledge sharing is proposed. Within this model, three organizational antecedents of knowledge sharing policies and practices are included, namely: top management knowledge values, an innovation business strategy, and perceived environmental uncertainty. Further, top management knowledge values and knowledge sharing policies and practices are hypothesized to lead to knowledge sharing effectiveness. The model was constructed by taking into account industrial contexts in Taiwan, and was examined using survey data collected from companies in Taiwan. The results showed that top management knowledge values and innovation business strategy are positively and significantly associated with knowledge sharing policies and practices, which in turn lead to knowledge sharing effectiveness. Finally, this article identifies and discusses implications for international information management.

Knowledge management and information management: A tale of two siblings

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-77
Author(s):  
Judy Payne ◽  
Jonathan Fryer
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Tacit Knowledge ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Codified Knowledge ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Way

Confusion has long existed between knowledge management (KM) and information management (IM). To the uninitiated, the difference between KM and IM is unclear – largely because there are no universally accepted definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’. But the confusion is not limited to the uninitiated. KM and IM specialists argue over the meaning of explicit and tacit knowledge, over the difference between information and data, and over the difference between codified knowledge and information. Why? And does any of this matter? This article explores the confusion between KM and IM by reflecting on the origins, development and current state of the two disciplines. The words we use to think and talk about KM and IM directly influence the way we practise KM and IM: and in some contexts, confusion between KM and IM has serious adverse effects on understanding and practice. The solution might lie in closer future development of the two disciplines – as long as practitioners appreciate that KM and IM are distinct but complementary, we talk to each other, and we pay attention to the words we use.

Knowledge management practice in South Asian higher education institutions

IFLA Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-321
Author(s):  
Saima Kanwal ◽  
Miguel Baptista Nunes ◽  
Muhammad Arif
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
South Asian ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Educational Institution ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Higher Educational Institutions ◽  
Higher Educational

The investigation reported in this paper intended to explore the research on knowledge management in higher educational institutions in South Asian countries. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify, select and retrieve relevant scholarly literature, by following a detailed protocol and a systematic data extraction strategy. The findings of the study showed that limited research on knowledge management in the context of higher educational institutions was conducted in both theoretical aspects and practical implementations, denoting an imperative to conduct more research in this area. The findings also disclosed that multiple factors affect the knowledge management practices among primary higher educational institution agents: faculty, administrative staff, and information professionals. As the result of the analysis of the literature review findings, a conceptual framework is proposed, which is expected to provide a good foundation for future research as well as pave the way towards more successful knowledge management implementations in the higher educational institutions in South Asia and beyond.

Knowledge management in teams: empirical integration and development of a scale

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 777-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ram Manohar Singh ◽  
Meenakshi Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
It Professionals ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Management Concepts ◽  
Knowledge Management Practices

Purpose – This paper aims to develop a scale to measure knowledge management holistically at team level and to provide an empirical integration to a fractured body of literature on knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach – Ten concepts commonly studied under the umbrella term “knowledge management” were reviewed. On the basis of literature review, a semi-structured interview was conducted with 24 information technology (IT) professionals. A scale was developed based on the literature review and the interviews. The scale was tested in two phases, on samples of 91 and 699 IT professionals. Team knowledge management was analysed on 512 respondents, belonging to 34 teams. Findings – Findings suggest that the newly developed scale is a reliable and valid measure of knowledge management. Exploratory factor analysis of the 27-item scale suggests that knowledge management should be measured along four dimensions: knowledge creation, sharing, retention and actionable knowledge support. Practical implications – Organizations expect their teams to make the best use of knowledge resources. This scale would help organizations diagnose knowledge management practices in teams and develop interventions according to the needs of each team. The scale and four-factor model will provide a framework and a tool to investigate relationship of knowledge management with other variables. Originality/value – The attempts to integrate literature on knowledge management have largely been theoretical, and there has been little empirical work to provide an integrative framework for knowledge management concepts. This paper presents an empirical basis for the integration of knowledge management concepts. The paper also presents development of a scale which measures knowledge management practices in teams.

scholarly journals Managing Knowledge and Risk – A Literature Review on the Interdependency of QRM and KM as ICH Q10 Enablers

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marty Lipa ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Biopharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
Pharmaceutical Quality System ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
And Control

Quality Risk Management (QRM) and Knowledge Management (KM) have been positioned as co-enablers to the Pharmaceutical Quality System since the 2010 issuance of ICH Q10. Yet these disciplines have remained largely distinct and disconnected in practice. This paper presents a two-part literature review on this topic. First is a review of how other industries have connected risk management and knowledge management. This is followed by a review of relevant biopharmaceutical industry regulatory guidance to explore expectations for how risk, risk management, knowledge and knowledge management are interdependent. The results suggest there is a strong argument in favor of linking risk management and knowledge management and other industries have demonstrated benefits in doing so. Furthermore, the review of the biopharmaceutical industry regulatory guidance shows the clear and persistent benefits of connecting the expectations of managing risk and knowledge together. A key conclusion is that risk varies inversely with knowledge application and therefore, a lower level of risk to quality (and ultimately to the patient) can be achieved through risk management practices when a thoughtful and programmatic approach to knowledge management is in place, providing the best possible knowledge to assess and control risk.

scholarly journals Knowledge Management Practices in GSD - A Systematic Literature Review Update

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romulo de Aguiar Beninca ◽  
Elisa Hatsue Moriya Huzita ◽  
Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez ◽  
Gislaine Camila Lapasini Leal ◽  
Renato Balancieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Knowledge Management Practices

scholarly journals Knowledge-Sharing Enablers and Barriers in Research Centers: A Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Rohman ◽  
Anis Eliyana ◽  
Dedi Purwana
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Centers ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Management Knowledge ◽  
Thomson Reuters

The purpose of the study is to explore the enablers and barriers of knowledge-sharing and consider how knowledge-sharing is implemented by research centers. The literature review covers journals which are indexed (Scopus, ProQuest, and Thomson Reuters) and specialized in knowledge-sharing in research centers. The papers could be easily explored using the key search terms via search engines such as Google Scholar, Emerald Insight, and ProQuest. The review process included the studies from 1994 to 2018. Key search terms include “knowledge management”, “knowledge sharing”, “knowledge sharing enablers and barriers”, and “research centers” to reduce interpretation bias. Individual enabler factors supporting knowledge-sharing consist of social relations and networks, physical proximity to colleagues, a ‘no stupid questions’ culture, monetary rewards, trust, openness in communication, interactive communication, and intrinsic motivational factors. Meanwhile organisational factors include the provision of meeting facilities and informal spaces, appreciation of research by firms and society, diffusion and routine dissemination, simplification of the patenting process, organizational rewards, organizational culture, intention to knowledge sharing methods, extrinsic motivation factors, and others (teamwork, and solid research team). The study was approached from a theoretical perspective and the model proposed can be empirically validated by identifying statements for each dimension. Future research should explore more empirical studies from different countries especially case studiesin research centers. Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge sharing enablers and barriers, research centers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document