Toward a Knowledge Management Framework for Auditing Processes

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loan Nguyen ◽  
Youji Kohda

We aimed at discovering how auditors working in an auditing firm managed their knowledge-related processes, and then built a theoretical model for the knowledge management of professional knowledge-intensive services like auditing. We conducted a case study in an auditing firm in Vietnam by employing a qualitative methodology in this research by using twenty in-depth interviews, observations, and documentary analysis. A literature review revealed that auditing research has been developed through various approaches ranging from experimental studies to information processing and experience-focused and knowledge-related interests. However, there has not been much empirical research that explains how knowledge is created during an auditing process. We conducted an empirical case study in this research that provided useful insights into constructing a theoretical model of knowledge management processes in auditing. Because the theoretical model consisted of three phases of collecting data, analyzing data (thereby turning them into information), and synthesizing information into knowledge, we called it the collect-analyze-synthesize (CAS) model. The model was used to visualize the auditing process as a spiral with many iterative CAS processes. Wisdom in the CAS model is defined as high levels of accumulated knowledge and the ability to exercise professional judgments attained from long-term experience. Wisdom is retained by members in an auditing firm and drives the auditing process. The significance of this study was inherent in three main areas: providing scholarly extensions of the literature by suggesting a knowledge management framework for auditing processes, helping auditors and auditing firms with their roles, and ensuring better assurance services for society.

2010 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoyoshi Yamazaki ◽  
Katsuhiro Umemoto

Healthcare is a knowledge-intensive service provided by professionals, such as medical doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. Clinical-pathways are used by many healthcare organisations (HCOs) as a tool for performing the healthcare process, sharing and utilising knowledge from different professionals. In this paper, case studies were performed at two HCOs that use clinical-pathways actively in the healthcare process. Theoretical model construction, sharing, utilisation, and creation of the knowledge by different professionals, were tested by the case study of two HCOs which use clinical pathways actively. The theoretical model was a knowledge creation model which creates new knowledge continuously. In this theoretical model, clinical-pathways are suggested to be an effective tool for knowledge management in healthcare.


Author(s):  
Fons Wijnhoven

The differences between the paradigms of knowledge management (KM) and operations management are huge. Whereas KM is rooted in the disciplines of human relations, sociology, organization analysis, and strategic management, the operations management paradigm finds its roots in industrial engineering, business economics, and information systems. These differences result in poor acceptance of KM ideas in operations management and vice versa. Several approaches to this problem are possible. For instance, one may state that the operations management paradigm is irrelevant for knowledge management. This is incorrect, because besides of the traditional person-oriented knowledge management processes, modern knowledge intensive firms use reengineered knowledge processes intensively (e.g., Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). An alternative approach may be to forget about the KM paradigm and only use the operations management paradigm. This is wrong again, because most industrial enterprises compete on the development and exploitation of their expertise and human capabilities (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Quinn, 1992). Consequently, if knowledge management is relevant and if operations management is not irrelevant, then the main question is how to translate knowledge management issues into an operations management framework. I provide a conceptual framework for such a knowledge operations management (KOM) perspective.


2011 ◽  
pp. 2829-2842
Author(s):  
Fons Wijnhoven

The differences between the paradigms of knowledge management (KM) and operations management are huge. Whereas KM is rooted in the disciplines of human relations, sociology, organization analysis, and strategic management, the operations management paradigm finds its roots in industrial engineering, business economics, and information systems. These differences result in poor acceptance of KM ideas in operations management and vice versa. Several approaches to this problem are possible. For instance, one may state that the operations management paradigm is irrelevant for knowledge management. This is incorrect, because besides of the traditional person-oriented knowledge management processes, modern knowledge intensive firms use reengineered knowledge processes intensively (e.g., Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). An alternative approach may be to forget about the KM paradigm and only use the operations management paradigm. This is wrong again, because most industrial enterprises compete on the development and exploitation of their expertise and human capabilities (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Quinn, 1992). Consequently, if knowledge management is relevant and if operations management is not irrelevant, then the main question is how to translate knowledge management issues into an operations management framework. I provide a conceptual framework for such a knowledge operations management (KOM) perspective.


Author(s):  
Fons Wijnhoven

The differences between the paradigms of knowledge management (KM) and operations management are huge. Whereas KM is rooted in the disciplines of human relations, sociology, organization analysis, and strategic management, the operations management paradigm finds its roots in industrial engineering, business economics, and information systems. These differences result in poor acceptance of KM ideas in operations management and vice versa. Several approaches to this problem are possible. For instance, one may state that the operations management paradigm is irrelevant for knowledge management. This is incorrect, because besides of the traditional person-oriented knowledge management processes, modern knowledge intensive firms use reengineered knowledge processes intensively (e.g., Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). An alternative approach may be to forget about the KM paradigm and only use the operations management paradigm. This is wrong again, because most industrial enterprises compete on the development and exploitation of their expertise and human capabilities (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Quinn, 1992). Consequently, if knowledge management is relevant and if operations management is not irrelevant, then the main question is how to translate knowledge management issues into an operations management framework. I provide a conceptual framework for such a knowledge operations management (KOM) perspective.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45
Author(s):  
Salman Bashir Memon ◽  
◽  
Wajid Hussain Rizvi ◽  
Syed Sumaiya ◽  
◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maayan Nakash ◽  
Dan Bouhnik

Purpose This study aims to examine the relevance of the term “knowledge management” (KM) in the organizational context, and deliberates whether there is a need for rebranding of this field. It also enriches the understanding regarding the appropriateness of the term “KM,” which was chosen to represent the discipline. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a qualitative research methodology, and a case study approach was followed by conducting 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews with international KM experts working in a global consulting firm. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis method based on the grounded theory approach. Findings The findings provide empirical evidence that attempts are being made to move away from the label “KM” in certain knowledge-intensive organizations. This study sheds light on the challenges associated with this term, which leads some to believe that the name of the discipline needs to change. Originality/value The present pioneering research contributes to empirical knowledge through investigation of an unexplored scientific field. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, for the first time, its uniqueness can be established by the fact that the opinions of KM professionals are being heard regarding the “KM” label, as well as the need for a rebranding of this discipline in the organizational context. From a practical and strategic perspective, this study suggests that the research community and practitioners pay attention to attempts to shift away from the existing title identified in organizational practice.


2013 ◽  
pp. 160-181
Author(s):  
Razatulshima Ghazali ◽  
Nor Hidayati Zakaria

Activities related to Enterprise Systems (ES) are knowledge-intensive tasks, and the management of ES-related knowledge has received much attention in the Knowledge Management (KM) field. A systematic literature review of empirical studies of KM processes in the ES lifecycle identifies the KM processes most widely explored and the ES-related knowledge most often addressed. From 350 relevant book chapters, journal articles, and conference papers, 49 papers discuss KM processes in the ES lifecycle. The KM process that appears most often in studies of KM in the ES context is knowledge transfer/sharing. The type of ES-related knowledge most often studied in the literature is knowledge of the client organization.


Author(s):  
Maria Manuel Mendes ◽  
Jorge F.S. Gomes ◽  
Bernardo Batiz-Lazo

This chapter uses key concepts in the knowledge management literature to analyse the procedures and practices used by a team during a new product development project. More precisely, the knowledge process or knowledge cycle is used as a means to examine issues relating to knowledge identification, creation, storage, dissemination, and application in new product development. Results from the case study also suggest that the knowledge process may be valuable in assessing the structural elements of knowledge management, but fails to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the dynamics and complexities involved. This suggests that more elaborate models are needed to explain how knowledge is created, shared and used in knowledge-intensive processes.


Author(s):  
Peter H. Carstensen ◽  
Ulrika Snis

It is widely acknowledged that knowledge is one of the most important assets of today’s organizations. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge is often a company’s greatest competitive advantage in a global economy. How to support the company’s knowledge-intensive work processes (e.g., quality support, product design or strategic planning) is therefore becoming a vital issue in many organizations worldwide. Identification, analysis and characterization of the knowledge-intensive work processes become essential in order to qualify a discussion of how to support knowledge management processes. This chapter presents, discusses and reflects upon findings from a study of how highly skilled actors manage information and knowledge, i.e., how information is gathered from a wide range of sources, structured according to needs and relevance for the users, and disseminated to the relevant suppliers in the organization. The aim of the chapter is two-folded: first, to contribute to the general empirical body of knowledge about knowledge-intensive work, especially focusing on the central characteristics of the knowledge management processes; secondly, to initiate a discussion of which overall requirements we must set up for how knowledge management processes could be supported by means of information and communication technology. Knowledge-intensive work processes often concern collaborative problem-solving and mutual support that require effective ways of handling information and knowledge between different people, both in short-term and long-term situations. The distributed and dynamic nature of knowledge management work also imposes a high degree of complexity involving many different actors with different conceptualizations, interpretations, perspectives, needs, etc. of the knowledge produced and approached. The various actors have different perspectives on the concept of knowledge. The work needed to articulate knowledge and make information and knowledge accessible becomes extremely demanding and complex. Often face-to-face interaction is required. However, in complex and collaborative work settings the problem of articulating knowledge by rich interaction and communication is obvious. The actors are distributed both geographically and temporally. There is a need for computer-based mechanisms for interaction and coordination of information and knowledge (cf. e.g., Carstensen and Wulf, 1998).


2003 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 117-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
William P. Hall

Tenix Defence, one of Australia's largest defence contractors, depends on winning bids and managing contracts for long-lifecycle engineering projects. The ability to capture, manage and deliver project knowledge in explicit formats is crucial to its success. Tenix is moving from a paradigm of traditional paper documents to electronically managing and automating structured knowledge artefacts in a knowledge management framework based on Karl Popper's (1973) three worlds of knowledge. The new technology captures the authors' implicit knowledge that was inevitably lost when working with paper documents and also moves aspects of personal cognition from the subjective and personal World 2 into the objective, virtual and persistent World 3.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document