International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Information Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
Knowledge management: An information science perspective
Gashaw Kebede ∗
School of Information Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, P.O. Box 150495, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords:
Information science
Knowledge management
Information management
Knowledge hierarchy
Scope of knowledge management
a b s t r a c t
Knowledge management (KM) is an emerging field of specialization in a number of professions, including
Information Science (IS). The different professions are contributing to and influencing the developments
in KM in their own ways. However, it is argued here that IS is not contributing to the advancement of
KM as much as it should for a number of apparent reasons. The main purpose of the paper is to call on
the members of the IS profession to take a more proactive and visible role in advancing KM by showing
that KM is a natural and long-awaited development in IS and that a number of circumstances have made
KM to be an area of emphasis in IS whose time has come. The paper also aims at contributing towards
achieving a consensus among IS professionals on conceptualization, goals, and scope of KM in IS. The
recommendations of the paper focus on how the profession could proactively be involved in advancing
KM.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Background and problem statement
Knowledge management (KM) is one of the emerging topics
of academic and professional discourse in many fields of knowledge, including cognitive sciences, sociology, management science,
information science (IS), knowledge engineering, artificial intelligence, and economics (Dalkir, 2005; Martin, 2008; Sinotte, 2004;
Rowley, 2007; Wild & Griggs, 2008). Professional journals dedicated to KM, special issues on KM, regular scholarly articles on
KM, reports on different aspects of KM, and national and international conferences on KM have all become common beginning
the early 1990s (Ajiferuke, 2003; Blair, 2002; Chua, 2009; Jakubik,
2007). Professional associations that promote the interests of KM
professionals are also emerging (such as the Knowledge Management Professionals Society (KMPro) and Knowledge Management
Society of Malaysia). Academic programs offering degrees of various levels and short courses are also expanding all over the world
(Ajiferuke, 2003; Dalkir, 2005). As will be discussed later in this
paper, the importance of managing knowledge is also getting more
and more attention in all types of organizations, including businesses, government bodies, research institutes, Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs), and international development and financial
institutions (Blair, 2002; Chua, 2009).
Evidently, there is a tendency by the different professions interested in KM to present and interpret what constitutes KM from
their own perspective as well as define the future direction of KM
∗ Tel.: +251 911406530.
E-mail addresses: gashawkbd@yahoo.com,
gashawk@sisa.aau.edu.et, gashawk@hotmail.com.
0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.004
as it fits the traditions and perspectives of their own profession
(Dalkir, 2005; Ekbia & Hara, 2007; Hlupic, Pouloudi, & Rzevski,
2002; Jashapara, 2005; Liao, He, & Tang, 2004; McInerney, 2002;
Sarrafzadeh, Martin, & Hazeri, 2006; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005).
Consequently, developments in KM are influenced by the different professions interested in knowledge (Dalkir, 2005; Jashapara,
2005; Martin, 2008; Rowley, 2007; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Sinotte,
2004). This has resulted in, among others, lack of universal consensus on some of the key issues of KM, including conceptualizations,
processes, goals and scope of KM (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002;
Bouthillier & Shearer, 2005; Corrall, 1999; Hlupic et al., 2002;
Maceviciute & Wilson, 2005; Martin, 2008; Morrow, 2001; Ponelis
& Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Sinotte, 2004; Wilson, 2002; Widén-Wulff
et al., 2005). While this seems to be the case with most of the other
professions interested in KM, IS is not playing as much influential role as it should be (Ajiferuke, 2003; Corrall, 1999; Jashapara,
2005; Martin, 2008; Orzano, McInerney, Scharf, Tallia, & Crabtree,
2008; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Summers, Oppenheim, Meadows,
McKnight, & Kinnell, 1999) for a number of apparent reasons,
including the following:
First, there is an ongoing debate among the members of the
profession on whether KM is a legitimate and distinct field of specialization of IS (Blair, 2002; Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Davenport
& Cronin, 2000; Gorman, 2004; Maceviciute & Wilson, 2005;
Martin, 2008; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005;
Wilson, 2002). This group considers KM as another term for what
they have been doing all along. Members of the profession who
reject KM as a distinct field of specialization within IS obviously
avoid purposeful engagement in advancing KM.
Second, many members of the profession also consider KM as
akin to Information Management (IM) that they are currently prac-
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
ticing, and fail to see the real significance of KM in their profession.
These members seem to be complacent about the current status of
IM and do not see any particular urgency and reason for them to be
engaging in KM.
Third, some members of the profession believe that they need
a new and different skill set, new mindset, and a new professional
culture in order for them to move to emphasizing KM. Professionals
in this group perceive the management of particularly tacit knowledge as something beyond their current professional preparation
and consider acquiring the new set of skills as a pre-requisite for
their participation in KM.
Fourth, some members of the profession lack adequate exposure and knowledge of the essence of KM and thus find it difficult
to actively contribute in any meaningful way to the ongoing debate
as well as to the advancement of KM. They acknowledge having difficulty understanding the key concepts and the distinct dimensions
of KM. These members by and large lack the necessary expertise to
engage in exploring and practicing KM.
Fifth, some members of the profession are also inhibited from
engaging in research for lack of readily usable techniques, frameworks and tools developed or promoted by their profession and
that are in tune with existing tradition, philosophy and theoretical
frameworks of IS. Although they have the appreciation and acceptance of KM as a legitimate development in their profession, this
group finds itself ill prepared to actively participate in KM research
and practice.
Finally, many members of the profession are not also getting
as much opportunity to actively participate in KM initiatives of
their respective organizations for various reasons. The primary
preoccupation of these members is to prove their value to their
organizations, rather than focusing on and advancing KM. Due to
these and similar reasons, there is little reported evidence supporting that IS is one of the main professions contributing to the
emergence and further evolution of KM in terms of research findings, conferences, publications, and so on (Jashapara, 2005; Orzano
et al., 2008; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006). There is also little evidence
of the involvement of the members of the profession in KM programs of organizations (Ajiferuke, 2003; Chen, 2005; Corrall, 1999;
Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006).
The failure to play the influential role could have detrimental
effect on IS profession in a number of ways. First, in the absence of
significant contribution from IS, other professions are influencing
developments in KM in the direction that is in line with their traditions and perspectives. Second, IS is affecting its own development
by not fully embracing KM which is supposed to be one of the next
logical stages of development in the profession. As a result of this,
many IS professionals interested in KM research, for example, are
left with little choice but to use frameworks and tools developed
by the other professions interested in KM even when the frameworks and tools are not as suitable for the work at hand. Third,
by showing reluctance to take the lead in advancing KM, IS has
created the situation for some of the other professions to unfairly
claim the contributions of IS to the development of KM as if they
are their own. It is not uncommon to come across claims by some of
the other disciplines interested in KM of concepts and techniques
that have originated in IS without acknowledging the original contributions by IS [for example, knowledge audit and knowledge
taxonomies have their roots in the works of IS researchers). It is not
also uncommon to see some of the other professions interested in
KM not acknowledging the contributions that IS has made towards
the emergence and evolution of KM as a field of study and practice (Maier, 2007; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005). Finally, it will not be
overemphasizing if one mentions, as a consequence of IS’s lack of
attention to KM, that KM is also being denied the contributions that
could have come from years of the accumulated knowledge in data
and information management by IS.
417
The primary purpose of this paper is to contribute towards
achieving a consensus on the true place of KM in IS among the IS
professionals by establishing that KM is a natural and long-awaited
development in IS and that a number of circumstances have contributed to make KM an area of emphasis in IS whose time has
come. The paper also aims at contributing towards achieving consensus among IS professionals on key issues related to KM (namely,
conceptualization, goals, and scope of KM) because such consensus
help define the boundaries and the direction that KM should take
in IS. To this end, the paper is organized under four sections. The
first section provides background and the purposes of the paper.
Section two presents factors and circumstances that are contributing to the emergence and evolution of KM in IS by way of providing
supporting evidence that KM is a logical and long-awaited development in IS. Section three highlights the distinguishing features
of KM in IS when understood as a logical and natural progression
in emphasis by IS. Section four presents some concluding remarks
and gives recommendations.
2. Factors leading to emergence and developments of KM
in IS
2.1. Knowledge as the highest order manifestation of the object of
study of IS
KM has emerged in IS primarily in response to the need for
emphasizing the management of knowledge as the highest form of
manifestations of the object of study of IS. Information is the object
of study of IS (Bates, 1999; Bates, 2005; Bawden, 2007; Belkin, 1978;
Ingwersen, 1995; Robinson, 2009; Vakkari, 1994; Vickery, 1997),
and it is generally understood as manifesting itself on a continuum
that runs from data, to information, to knowledge. This continuum
is commonly referred to in the literature as information hierarchy,
knowledge spectrum, knowledge pyramid, knowledge hierarchy
or similar others. The knowledge hierarchy is the widely accepted
conceptualization of the object of interest of IS and is widely used
to define and reveal relationships of the foundational concepts of
IS—data, information and knowledge (Bates, 2005; Fricke, 2009;
Martin, 2008; Meadow & Yuan, 1997; Rowley, 2007; Zins, 2007b).
The different authors have described the place of data, information
and knowledge in IS as “one of the fundamental, widely recognized, and ‘taken for granted’ models in information and knowledge
literatures” (Rowley, 2007), the fundamental concepts and basic
building blocks of the field (Zins, 2007b), “the canon of information
science” and “part of the common currency of information science”
(Fricke, 2009).
The primary implications of the relationships revealed by the
knowledge hierarchy are that knowledge is the highest form
that information would take, making knowledge and its management the ultimate target towards which developments in the field
have logically been progressing. According to the hierarchical representation of the manifestations of information, the following
dimensions that show that knowledge is the highest form of manifestation of the object of study of IS are revealed:
• The manifestation of information is in the form of continuum
running from data to information to knowledge, where each is
followed by the other (Morrow, 2001; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels,
1998).
• The interrelationships among data, information and knowledge
are hierarchical where data represents the elementary and crude
form of existence of information; information represents data
endowed with meaning; and knowledge represents information
with experience, insight, and expertise (Broadbent, 1998; Zins,
2007a).
418
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
• The creation of the three manifestations of information is to be
logically incremental whereby data is consolidated to become
information, and information is further consolidated with human
insight, experience, and context to become knowledge (Meadow
& Yuan, 1997; Morrow, 2001; Rowley, 2007; Zins, 2006; Zins,
2007a). In this sequential order, data and information serve as
inputs to the creation of knowledge (Rowley, 2007; Zins, 2007a;
Zins, 2007b).
• The higher level manifestation includes the manifestation below
it (Ilkka, 2000; Rowley, 2007), making knowledge to be inclusive
of data and information.
• Finally, data and information depend on knowledge for their
proper interpretation and understanding. In other words, knowledge is the highest form of manifestation that is required to
understand and interpret data and information (Martin, 2008;
Meadow & Yuan, 1997; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Zins,
2007b).
Therefore, the representation of the three manifestations of
information in knowledge hierarchy culminates in knowledge at
the top of the continuum. And KM can be considered as the logical
framework for a comprehensive management of the object of study
of the profession as argued by Zins (2007a).
It is the argument of this paper then that the emergence of KM
is a natural and long-awaited development in IS as a part of the
logical progression in emphasis given by the profession to the different manifestations of its object of study. The logical progression
in emphasis here refers to the emphasis that the profession has
been giving at different times to the management of the different manifestations of information, i.e., first to data and information
and then to knowledge, with information receiving particularly
more emphasis since the early 1980s (Cronin, 1985; Maceviciute
& Wilson, 2002; Fairer-Wessels, 1997) and knowledge dominating
the literature of IS since the early 1990s (Schlögl, 2005) in accordance to the hierarchical positions of the manifestations. Some
authors have gone further to argue that KM will follow IM as the
highest stage of evolution of IM (Lytle, 1986; Savic, 1992; Trauth,
1989).
2.2. Knowledge as the ultimate concern of IS
KM has also emerged because knowledge has always been the
ultimate concern of the profession. The literature of IS shows that
the ultimate emphasis of the profession would be knowledge (and
hence knowledge management), making the current emphasis on
knowledge and knowledge management forthcoming. This has
been reflected in major works of the profession since the early
days of the field (Brookes, 1980; Ingwersen, 1995; Oluic-Vukovic,
2001; Saracevic, 1999; Zins, 2006, 2007a). In his seminal paper on
the fundamental equation of information science, Brookes (1980)
states that objective knowledge as recorded in languages, arts, the
sciences and the technologies is the concern of IS. Brookes (1980)
further suggests that information science needs theory of objective
knowledge, since objective knowledge is the underlying object of
the field. Saracevic (1999, p. 14) notes that the mission of IS is to
address the massive task of making the bewildering store of knowledge more accessible. Oluic-Vukovic (2001, p. 55) is of view that
knowledge processing and management is the main concern of
IS and comments that “Although information still constitutes the
essential part, the ultimate intellectual problem is not the effective
means of information provision, but production and use (consumption) of knowledge.” He also cites the statement by ASIST (1999)
as a supporting evidence that the emphasis of the IS profession is
shifting towards knowledge:
Our ability to transform data into information, and to transform
information into knowledge that can be shared, can change the
face of work, education and life. We have increasing capacity
to generate or gather, model, represent and retrieve more complex, cross disciplinary and multi format data and ideas from
new sources and at varying scales. The transformational power
of information can only be capitalized upon through knowledge acquisition, classification, utilization and dissemination
research, tools and techniques.
Zins (2006) posits that IS explores the phenomena, objects,
and conditions that facilitate access to knowledge. Zins (2007a, p.
339) also defines Information Science as “. . .the study of mediating
perspectives of universal human knowledge. . .The mediating perspectives include cognitive, social, and technological aspects and
conditions, which facilitate the dissemination of human knowledge
from the originator to the user”. Zins (2007a, p. 335) takes his argument further when he calls for changing the name of the field to
knowledge science:
Furthermore, even the name information science is problematic. The three concepts, data, information, and knowledge that
are embodied in the concept of information science are interrelated. Data is commonly conceived as the raw material for
information, which is commonly conceived as the raw material
for knowledge. Knowledge is the highest order construction. If
this is the case and information science deals with all three, then
it should be called knowledge science, rather than information
science. Note that knowledge science can explore knowledge
and its building blocks, information and data, whereas information science is hindered from exploring knowledge because it is
of a higher order.
A number of leading members of the profession who participated in a panel discussion on the conception of IS, and reported
in Zins (2007a), have also reflected in their definitions of IS that
knowledge transfer is the ultimate concern of the profession
(Hanne Albrechtsen, Maria Teresa Biagetti, Michael Buckland, Henri
Jean-Marie Dou, Nicolae Dragulanescu, Michel Menou, and Anna da
Soledade Vieira, reported in Zins, 2007a). Emphasizing knowledge
and its management has thus been to many the eventual concern
of the IS and thus the underlying trust of the development effort of
the field.
2.3. Experiences of the profession in understanding and
managing data and information
Three categories of relevant developments in and experiences
of IS are also contributing factors for the emergence and evolution
of KM in IS. The first one relates the insight that IS has accumulated on the inherent qualities of knowledge and superior value of
knowledge over data and information. The second relevant experience contributing to the emergence and evolution of KM is the
experience and expertise that the field has accumulated in data
and information management that has created the impetus for the
profession to consider that the time has come to move to the next
level of development (i.e., KM). The third area of experience relates
to the application of ICTs in IS that in one form or another made it
feasible for the profession to embark on KM. Each of these is briefly
discussed below.
2.3.1. Deeper understanding of the inherent qualities of
knowledge
Better understanding of the inherent qualities of knowledge by
IS is also presented here as one of the developments that led the
field to realize that it is imperative that the emphasis of the profession should be knowledge and KM. The profession’s long years
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
of focus on the information phenomenon as its object of study has
led to the realization that knowledge is the most enriched and useful of the three, and the ultimate source of value to users. This has
made knowledge to be the desired form of the three manifestations of information for the profession to emphasize for the benefit
of society. Orzano et al. (2008, p. 491) argue that “KM grew out of
an understanding of the critical value of knowledge and the clear
need to devise ways to support and benefit from them”.
The quality dimensions revealed in the IS literature as we go
from data to information and to knowledge include the following:
• Level of added value: The relationship among data, information and knowledge is shown as reflecting increasing levels of
value added from data to information to knowledge (Liao et al.,
2004; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Donald Hawkins, cited in
Zins, 2007b; Gordana.Dodig-Crnkovi cited in Taylor, 1986; Zins,
2007b).
• Degree of distillation: The relationships among the three concepts are also described in terms of increasing degree of
distillation from data to knowledge, where the distillation is
achieved through the value adding processes of summarizing, evaluating, comparing, classifying, and so on (Bates, 2005;
Bawden, 2001; Corrall, 1999; Liao et al., 2004; Taylor, 1986).
• Degree of complexity: The hierarchal relationships of data, information and knowledge are based on the increasing levels of
complexity that each shows as we go from data to information
and to knowledge (Anna da Soledade Vieira, cited in Allee, 1997;
Zins, 2007b).
• Level of abstraction: The level of abstraction, i.e., a degree of
semantics extraction and which enables actors to retool, restructure and redesign the organization, increases as we go from data
to knowledge in the hierarchy (Liao et al., 2004).
• Degree of integration: Moving from data to knowledge in the
hierarchical presentation is also marked by increased levels of
integration, where data is the least integrated and knowledge
the most integrated (Allee, 1997).
• Degree of organization: The concepts are distinguished in terms
of the increasing levels of organization that they possess from
data to information to knowledge, where data is shown as
disparate entities while knowledge is the result of a complex
process of organization of data, information, context, experience,
and personal reflections (Donald Hawkins, cited in Zins, 2007b;
Gordana.Dodig-Crnkovi, cite in Zins, 2007b).
• Degree of connectedness: The hierarchy is understood as representing increasing levels of connectedness of the entities
embodied, where data shows unconnected entities and knowledge shows highly connected entities, involving acts, experience,
insights and so on that make up the knowledge structure
(Bellinger, Castro, & Mills, 2004; Clark, 2000).
• Degree of value (importance or relevance): The hierarchy reveals
increasing levels of value of the three manifestations for problem
solving and decision making as we go from data to knowledge, showing knowledge as the ultimate source of value (Aldo
Barreto, cited in Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002; Zins, 2007b;
Controller iCenter, 2002; Donald Kraft, cited in Zins, 2007b;
Donald Hawkins, cited in Zins, 2007b; Eriksson-Backa, 2003,
cited in Huvila, 2006; Lang, 2001; Liao et al., 2004; McInerney,
2002; Meadow & Yuan, 1997; Morrow, 2001). The relationships
between the three concepts also show the importance of knowledge in that it is required to interpret data and information
(Martin, 2008).
• Degree of meaningfulness: Data, information and knowledge are
also distinguished in terms of degree of meaningfulness where
data has no meaning and knowledge is the most meaningful of
the manifestations (Donald Hawkins, cited in Rowley, 2007; Zins,
2007b, citing Chaffey and Wood, 2005).
419
• Level of human input: The amount of human contribution
increases as we go from data to information and to knowledge
(Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Rowley, 2007, citing Pearlson
and Saunders, 2006).
• Degree of applicability (ready for use): In the hierarchy, the move
from data to information to knowledge is presented as accompanied with increasing levels of applicability, where knowledge is
readily applicable while data is not (Bates, 2005; Bouthillier &
Shearer, 2002; Rowley, 2007; Sinotte, 2004).
• Degree of contextualization: The move from data to information
and from information to knowledge is marked by increased level
of contextualization, rendering knowledge the most meaningful
and applicable (Clark, 2000; Donald Kraft, cited in Zins, 2007b).
• Degree of learning: There is an increased learning (increased
clarity, deeper understanding) as we go from data (unfiltered)
to information (patterns), to knowledge (predictability) (OTEC,
2007).
• Degree of understanding: Moving from data to knowledge is
also marked by increased understanding reflected in each (Clark,
2000).
Thus, according to the knowledge hierarchy, the three manifestations of information are understood and presented as logically
related whereby data evolves to information and information to
knowledge as a natural progression towards becoming more valuable, useful, meaningful, and comprehensive. That knowledge is
all-inclusive and the most useful form has also made knowledge to be the desired form towards which emphasis should be
directed. The different dimensions and relationships among the
three concepts further show that the concern of the profession
would ultimately be knowledge and its management.
2.3.2. Experiences in managing data and information
The profession has accumulated years of expertise and experience on the management of data and information in the past
decades. This expertise and experience is argued here to have conditioned members of the profession to be drawn to addressing
knowledge related issues as a way forward in the management of
the object of study of their profession.
The expertise and the experience accumulated have particularly helped the profession to realize the limitations of emphasizing
only data and information management in fully meeting its goal
of facilitating information and knowledge to enable society make
informed decisions at the right time. This has led the profession
to see beyond data and information management to KM, a focus
that the profession has known to offer a lot more. Blair (2002)
notes that the experience, both successful and failed experiences, in
data/information management have contributed to the emergence
of KM in the field: “The emergence of Knowledge Management is,
in some sense, the consequence of, first, the realization that there
is “something more” to be extracted from current information/data
systems than what is actually stored on them, and, second, the
poor record of DSSs and ESs in supporting, capturing or utilizing
this additional information.” (p. 1024). Sinotte (2004) contends
that failure of most computer based information systems to help
manage information has led the profession to look beyond IM and
specifically to KM. In a similar way, Jashapara (2005) argues that
KM has emerged because IM has failed to deliver tangible results in
organizations. Orzano et al. (2008) observe that “KM both attempts
to translate lessons learned from information/data management as
well as to make aware its diminishing returns” (p. 493). Thus the
knowledge accumulated in understanding and managing data and
information and the challenges faced by the profession in meeting
societal goals are argued here to have paved the way for the profession to consider focusing more on the essence, distinguishing
features, importance, tools and management of knowledge.
420
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
2.3.3. Experience in applications of ICTs
Developments in the capacities and ubiquity of ICT and their
subsequent successful applications in data and information management have triggered and facilitated the move to emphasizing
KM in IS. It is widely observed that developments in ICT capacity,
particularly of those that are more relevant to managing knowledge in its different forms, have made it possible for the profession
to move to focusing on KM (Blair, 2002; Chong & Choi, 2005;
Doodewaard, 2006; Makani, 2008; Oluic-Vukovic, 2001). OluicVukovic (2001, p. 55) observes that technological developments
are among the factors for the current interest in KM by the profession: “the initial impetus or stimulus [for the current needs
for knowledge production] is supposed to come about through
the rapid development of information technology (i.e., through its
incentive as well as enabling effects).” Oluic-Vukovic (2001, p. 57)
concludes that “The current shift towards knowledge processing
is driven by a mix of daunting practical needs set by the society,
and the recent technological advances that make the concept of
generating useful knowledge from a huge amount of data more
feasible.”.
A wider application of ICT in data and information management
has also led the profession to discover their increased potential for
representing and capturing knowledge, prompting the profession
to embark on KM. Blair (2002) argues that the emergence of KM
is highly influenced by the growth and application of computer
technology particularly to data and information management, with
the earlier applications of the technology being data management.
Many also contend that the technology has been part and parcel of developments of KM (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2006;
Dalkir, 2005; Doodewaard, 2006; Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007;
Hsu, Lawson, & Liang, 2007; Lang, 2001; Pang, Pablos-Mendez, &
Jsselmuiden, 2004; Wild & Griggs, 2008). Becerra-Fernandez and
Sabherwal (2006, p. 230), for example, state that:
Rapid changes in the field of knowledge management (KM) have
to a great extent resulted from the dramatic progress we have
witnessed in the field of information and communications technology. ICT allows the movement of information at increasing
speeds and efficiencies, and thus facilitates sharing as well as
accelerated growth of knowledge. . .Thus, ICT has provided a
major impetus for enabling the implementation of KM applications.
Thus, ICT amenable to KM activities have enabled the profession to take up the challenges of managing the highest form of
manifestation of their object of study.
2.4. The Emergence of knowledge society
Finally it is argued here that the profession has to embark on
emphasizing knowledge and KM in response to the emergence of
the knowledge society, a society that puts knowledge production
and use at the heart of its activities, and due to the fact that the
inherent qualities of knowledge are receiving increasing appreciation globally (Drucker, 1993 cited in Kakabadse, Kouzmin, &
Kakabadse, 2001; Morrow, 2001; Nath, 2000; Oluic-Vukovic, 2001;
Passerini, 2007; UNCTAD, 2007; UNDP, 2003; The World Bank,
1999). The development calls for means and tools of the management of knowledge to which the profession is already committed
and has relatively richer experience and expertise in. The emergence of knowledge-based society has also brought with it a new
sense of urgency to look into issues surrounding knowledge with
earnest. According to Oluic-Vukovic (2001, p. 57) one of the reasons
for the current needs to intensify the activities to the discovery of
knowledge is “the emergence of knowledge-based societies, paralleled by replacement of capital and labor-intensive organizations
with knowledge-intensive organizations, where the quality and
availability of intellectual capital become critical success factors,
allowing business to make proactive, knowledge-driven decision
. . .”. Due to this, the IS profession has found itself in the best possible position to live up to its goal of serving societal needs which
is an important impetus for the profession to give emphasis to KM.
Many agree that development of the knowledge-based society has
indeed fueled the shift of emphasis from information to knowledge,
and hence to KM in IS (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002; Chong & Choi, 2005;
Jashapara, 2005; Lang, 2001; Sinotte, 2004; Oluic-Vukovic, 2001;
Ondari-Okemwa, 2006; Passerini, 2007).
3. Implications of the IS perspective on KM
The perspective that KM is a logical progression of emphasis by
the IS profession would guide how the profession conceptualizes
and practices KM. Accordingly, KM in IS would have the following
formulations of its key concepts, goal, and scope.
3.1. Conceptualization of knowledge and KM
The conceptualization of knowledge and KM has to be in line
with the perspective that KM is a natural development in IS that
follows data and information management.
3.1.1. The concept of knowledge
In line with the perspective that KM is a logical progression in
emphasis given by the profession, knowledge should be understood
as the highest order manifestation of information that includes
both data and information. It is information combined with personal experience, insights, expertise, hunches and logical reasoning
formed in the minds of human beings. A number of writers in the
profession have already put forward definitions of knowledge in
line with this conceptualization of knowledge and some of these
definitions are given in Appendix A of this paper.
Knowledge should also be treated as existing in a recorded form
(explicit or objective form) or unrecorded form (tacit and in the
minds of humans). Explicit knowledge is that part of the knowledge captured in some form for others to access (Liyanage, Elhag,
Ballal, & Li, 2009; McInerney, 2002; Nordin, Pauleen, & Gorman,
2009; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Smith, 2001; Yates-Mercer
& Bawden, 2002). Although many consider recorded knowledge as
equivalent to information, recorded knowledge is argued here to
be richer than information as it is a reflection and the result of
“many increments of information”, personal experience, insights,
reflections, and logical reasoning created in the minds of human
beings over a period of time. Information in this context is specific to a situation on which data has been collected and organized
to give a meaningful picture about the specific situation. Recorded
knowledge is richer than information which is specific to a situation because it includes information that have been accumulated on
other similar situations and processed and structured using existing experience, insight, expertise and so on of the knower (Bates,
2005; Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002; Todd, 1999). Bouthillier and
Shearer (2002) state that “it is our contention that to consider
information as the equivalent of explicit knowledge reveals an
inadequate assessment of the qualitative dimensions of the various
types of information and knowledge created, used and transferred
in organizations”.
Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is that aspect of human
knowledge which cannot be expressed in explicit, objective form
(Liyanage et al., 2009; McInerney, 2002; Nordin et al., 2009; Ponelis
& Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Smith, 2001; Yates-Mercer & Bawden,
2002). Many argue that tacit knowledge is the basis for competitive advantage, innovation and creativity, making its management
the primary raison d’être of KM in many organizations (YatesMercer & Bawden, 2002; Kakabadse et al., 2001). Many also point
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
out that Tacit knowledge is the major portion of knowledge that
humans possess compared to explicit knowledge (Beijerse, 1999).
The management of tacit knowledge is also the main aspect that
distinguishes KM from IM, as IM focuses on managing recorded
information (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2005).
Knowledge should also be seen as subjective, objective and
social. Knowledge is subjective and personal in that its creation,
processing and development occur in the minds of the individual
(Buckland, 1991; Dalkir, 2005; Morrow, 2001; Ponelis & FairerWessels, 1998; Schlögl, 2005; Wilson, 2002). Knowledge is also
external or objective in that, although it is created and resides in
the mind of the individual in its entirety, some aspects of it also can
take a physical form (Anna da Soledade Vieira, cited in Zins, 2007b;
Anthony Debons, 2007b; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Todd, 1999,
citing Brookes, 1974; Zins, 2007b). Knowledge is also social (socially
constructed) in that what individuals adopt as perspective and
model of the world is a result of social interaction, including acculturation and education which are usually associated with a given
discipline or socio-cultural views of a community to which individuals belong (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002; Kirk, 1999; Lang, 2001).
3.1.2. The concept of KM
Broadly, KM is a purposeful and systematic management of
knowledge and the associated processes and tools with the aim
of realizing fully the potential of knowledge in making effective
decisions, solving problems, facilitating innovations and creativity
and achieving competitive advantage at all levels (personal, group,
organization, country and so on). Definitions of KM that are consistent with the perspective of this paper and that could provide
insights as to the essence of KM are given in Appendix B.
The main added dimension of KM, over and above IM, is its focus
on managing tacit knowledge that exists in the form of experience,
know-how, insight, expertise, competence and so on (Bouthillier
& Shearer, 2002; Bouthillier & Shearer, 2005; Ponelis & FairerWessels, 1998; Sinotte, 2004). Due to its focus on tacit knowledge,
KM also uses cultural means such as “face-to-face meetings, socializations and mentoring” as a tool for managing knowledge (Martin,
2008; Sinotte, 2004; Wilson, 2002; Yates-Mercer & Bawden, 2002).
KM therefore includes a range of aspects of IM.
KM being with an added dimension over IM means that KM and
IM overlap, although some refer to the overlap in tools, terminology and techniques between IM and KM as a point of argument
that KM is IM in disguise. Specifically, IM provides a foundation for KM (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002; Hoven, 2001; Kakabadse et al.,
2001; Martin, 2008; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Sarrafzadeh
et al., 2006; Sinotte, 2004). Kakabadse et al. (2001, p. 140) note
that “Information and data management are important pillars
of knowledge management. However, knowledge management
encompasses broader issues and, in particular, creation of processes
and behaviours that allow people to transform information into
the organization and create and share knowledge”. Hoven (2001)
also argues that successful IM is a pre-requisite for KM. Ponelis and
Fairer-Wessels (1998) also argue that KM does not replace IM. For
Blair (2002) IM is a component of KM: “Although Knowledge Management is not the same as data or information management, data
and information retrieval can be important components of it.” (p.
1026). Some also acknowledge that even before they started receiving emphasis, KM related activities have also been practiced under
IM programs (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002). The overlaps include
tools in use (databases, internets collaborative tools and so on)
and concepts (information audit vs knowledge audit, information
mapping vs knowledge mapping and so on).
Being in a continuum where “each is followed by the other”, (and
where information occurs before knowledge), also implies that the
concepts, tools, techniques and processes needed for their management are bound to overlap (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002; Bouthillier &
421
Shearer, 2002; Martin, 2008). Al-Hawamdeh (2002), for example,
states that:
It is important to note that information management tools are a
subset of knowledge management tools. Information management tools allow organizations to generate, access, store, and
analyse data, usually in the form of facts and figures. Information management tools enable the manipulation of information
but do not capture the complexity of context and the richness
of knowledge. While knowledge management systems may
include tools that also handle data and information, data and
information management tools are not robust enough to truly
facilitate knowledge management.
Some aspects of IM are in fact identified as critical for successful
KM. For example, knowledge creation requires supply of information, which should be properly managed to help achieve knowledge
creation. Todd (1999) observes that IM is a part of KM because one
of the ways that knowledge is created and nurtured is through continued exposure to information. That the three manifestations are
in a continuum, the higher one involving the lower level manifestation as we go from data to information to knowledge, can thus
explain the overlap we see among the aspects of the management
of data, information, and knowledge.
3.2. The goals of KM in IS
The goal of KM in IS is basically to help facilitate human access
to information and knowledge for effective decision making and
problem solving in work situation as well as every day life. This has
always been the goal of IS under IM as well as data management
and continues to be so under KM (Brookes, 1980; Fairer-Wessels,
1997; Oluic-Vukovic, 2001; Saracevic, 1999; Zins, 2007a). The goal
of KM in IS is broader than the goals of KM in other disciplines
interested in KM because facilitating access to knowledge by IS
is not limited to serving specific contexts and environments such
as gaining sustainable competitive advantages or market positions
in management sciences or improving organizational learning in
organizational sciences. The goal of KM is facilitating access to
information and knowledge in organizations, groups, communities,
business, research, and so on whenever it is needed.
3.3. The scope of KM in IS
The scope of KM should also be broader than the narrowly
defined focus of KM in most of the other disciplines interested
in KM, such as the management of organizational knowledge as
defined by organizational science and management science. The
scope of KM in IS is broader because the scope of KM in the other
professions generally targets a narrowly defined environment or
context, such as organizational knowledge by organizational science and the cognitive and behavioural processes of learning and
knowing by cognitive science (Martin, 2008; Orzano et al., 2008).
In line with the scope of the profession itself, the management
interest of KM in IS should not discriminate among knowledge
sources (implicit and/or explicit) and processes found in different contexts such individual, household, group, organizational, and
country levels. It should not also limit its implementation only in
certain context if it has to live to its expectations of facilitating
human access to knowledge. The theoretical and conceptual frameworks of KM in IS should also be broader than that of the KM in
the other disciplines, such as resource based (knowledge based)
theory of the firm in organizational science, theory of learning in
cognitive science, and the social creation of knowledge in social
sciences (Martin, 2008; Orzano et al., 2008). The guiding principle and practice of KM in IS would be ensuring end users’ access
to knowledge irrespective of their position in society. Interpreting,
422
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
advancing, and implementing KM should also be guided by the traditions, philosophies, and theoretical and conceptual frameworks
of IS as these will ensure the continuity that has been evolving from
data and information management towards achieving the highest
stage of management of the object of study of the profession. This
broader scope of KM in IS will also allow it to take advantage of
developments in most of the other disciplines interested in KM as
they can be viewed as, by virtue of their narrower focus, subsidiary
to the KM in IS.
In line with the conceptualization of knowledge above, the
knowledge to be managed includes data, information, recorded
(or explicit) knowledge, and personal (or tacit) knowledge (Hoven,
2001; Jashapara, 2005; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Sinotte,
2004). The knowledge processes to be managed also include creating, gathering, nurturing, storing, organizing, sharing and utilizing
knowledge. KM also covers the management of KM tools (such as
knowledge repositories, e-learning tools) and other KM enablers
(such as organizational culture).
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1. Conclusion
The shift in emphasis on knowledge, and hence KM, is a logical progression within the knowledge hierarchy framework that
the profession has adopted. It can be argued that the foundation
for the current shift in focus on knowledge has been laid since the
early days of the IS profession, and the profession has been positioning itself and worked to bring about this shift, although largely
without having a clearly defined time table for achieving this. The
progression is best described as evolutionary and a number of factors have contributed at different times and in different guises to
help meet the underlying pre-requisites for or to accelerate the
progression to take place at this point in time. The progression is
viewed here as logical because understandings and management
practices accumulated from the earlier stages have been the basis
for this highest stage. As such there is unavoidable overlap in the
conceptualizations, tools and management practices of the three
(data–information–knowledge) since the understanding and the
management practices of the higher stages are built on the foundations of the earlier stages. What the profession has been doing
is primarily recognizing the occurrences and characteristics of the
progression and embracing it as instances of development in the
field. The acceptance of the progression has never been universal
as a good number of IS professionals have argued that there are
no differences between KM and IM. This could be due to the fact
that KM is at an early stage of development. It could also be due to
the logical overlap among the concepts and tools involved in the
management of the three manifestations of information.
Due to this logical progression, KM is going to be here with us,
with a far reaching impact on the profession’s core values, processes, tools, technologies and research issues. Ensuring that KM
matures fully for everyone to see that it is the highest stage of
development in the IS profession is in the hands of the profession
itself. Consequently the profession has to fully embrace it, nurture
it, develop it and exploit it to meet its professional contributions.
4.2. Recommendations
The following key recommendations will help the profession to
respond better to the progression in line with the arguments and
conclusions of this paper.
4.2.1. Embrace it
The profession should fully embrace the emergence of KM as a
natural progression in emphasis of its object of study. The litera-
ture shows that the emergence of KM has been inevitable and the
process has been unfolding under the auspices of IS. This makes IS
the main field to take the lead in recognizing and making KM its
own as it should be.
4.2.2. Establish it
Similarly, the profession has to develop consensus as to the place
of KM in IS, as KM has not yet been accepted as a logical progression
as well as a legitimate specialization of the field by all its members.
The first step then should be to resolve the differences and establish
KM as the primary focus of the field. The current paper hopefully
contributes in that regard by showing that the profession by and
large has been involved in KM in one form or another and that KM
is the logical progression that may not be reversed.
4.2.3. Develop it
With embracing the emergence of KM, the profession should
embark on professional and academic activities to help develop
and sustain the development in KM, to promote and establish KM
as a professional and academic endeavor among its members, to
make it the main identity of the profession, and to assume the
responsibility of advancing the field. In this connection training and
research are the key areas of activities that the profession should
focus on:
• Training: As the highest stage of emphasis of the object of study
of the profession, the primary training thrust of IS should emphasize KM at different levels. This should include expanding degree
programs (BSc, PGD, MSc, Mphil, and PhD) at higher learning
institutions, including KM courses in other areas of specializations within IS as compulsory, and conduct short courses as
professional development interventions.
• Research: Similarly, the profession should take the lead to put KM
on the top of the research agenda of the profession to advance
the field and sustain the advancement. The research focus should
include the applications of KM tools, frameworks, techniques
and technologies to addressing the every day issues of human
beings. With knowledge-based development receiving attention
among development and economics experts, KM on development
should also be one of the areas of research and development of
KM. The controversial issues in KM should also be addressed
as a matter of priority in order to bring together and build
consensus among members of the professions. Research particularly to develop an integrative framework that would allow
KM in IS to define its priorities and directions as well as filter
developments in other disciplines interested in KM for possible absorption into its corpus of knowledge and practice is also
imperative.
Appendix A. Illustrative definitions of knowledge for KM in
IS
• Data is a series of facts and figures resulting from observation
or measurement process and that has not been processed for
use. Here “unprocessed” might be understood in a sense that
no specific effort has been made to interpret or understand
the data. Information is data given context, and endowed with
meaning and significance. Knowledge is information that is transformed through reasoning and reflection into beliefs, concepts,
and mental models. (Gordana.Dodig-Crnkovi cited in Zins, 2007b,
p. 482).
• Knowledge [is] larger structures of related information
(Oppenheim, Stenson, & Wilson Richard, 2003, p. 160).
• Knowledge is information that has been given meaning and taken
to a higher level. Knowledge emerges from analysis, reflection
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
upon, and synthesis of information. (Donald Hawkins cited in
Zins, 2007b, p. 483).
Knowledge is the accumulation and integration of information
received and processed by a recipient (Meadow & Yuan, 1997,
p. 701).
Knowledge [is] information given meaning and integrated with
other contents of understanding (Bates, 2005).
Knowledge is a collective entity, a summation, integration and
transformation of many bits of information organized in a coherent way. It exists privately in the minds of people, and it can be
made external and public through being recorded in some way
(Todd, 1999, p. 862).
Knowledge is the combination of data and information, to which
is added expert opinion, skills, and experience, to result in a valuable asset which can be used to aid decision making’ (Rowley,
2007, p. 172, citing Chaffey and Wood, 2005).
Knowledge is data and/or information that have been organized
and processed to convey understanding, experience, accumulated learning, and expertise as they apply to a current problem
or activity’ (Rowley, 2007, p. 172, citing Turban et al., 2005).
Knowledge is the combination of information, context, and experience. Context is an individual’s framework for viewing life.
This includes influences like social values, religion, cultural heritage, and gender. Experience is previously acquired knowledge
(Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998, p. 2).
Knowledge is created in the minds of humans through “accretion
and integration of many increments of information over different
exposures to information at different times” (Todd, 1999, p. 859,
citing Brookes, 1974).
Appendix B. Illustrative definitions of KM consistent with
the argument of this paper
• Successful knowledge management is an integrated approach
that combines the information stored in an enterprise’s information systems with unstructured information that holds the
experiences and insights of the enterprise (Hoven, 2001, p. 82).
• . . .knowledge management is an added dimension, intensifying the need for the integration and management of all three
(data–information–knowledge) within an organization (Ponelis
& Fairer-Wessels, 1998, p. 5).
• Knowledge management brings a new dimension, the need to
manage tacit knowledge by focusing on people and enhance their
capability by improving communication, information transfer
and collaboration (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002).
• Knowledge Management [is] Information or data management
with the additional practice of capturing the tacit experience of
the individual to be shared, used and built upon by the organization leading to increased productivity (http://www.gdrc.org/
kmgmt/what-is-km.html citing Source: KMTool Community).
• Knowledge management [is] the creation and subsequent management of an environment which encourages knowledge to be
created, shared, learnt, enhanced, and organized for the benefit
of the organization and its customers (Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006, p.
624).
References
Ajiferuke, I. (2003). Role of information professionals in knowledge management programs: Empirical evidence from Canada. Informing Science Journal, 6,
147–157.
Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Knowledge management: Re-thinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge. Information
Research, 8(1), paper no. 143 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/81/paper143.html] [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence.
Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann., 274 pp
423
Bates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrata of information science. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(12), 1043–
1050.
Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for
information science. Information Research, 10(4) paper 239 [Available at
http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html] [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Bawden, D. (2001). The shifting terminologies of information. Aslib Proceedings,
53(3), 93–98.
Bawden, D. (2007). Organised complexity, meaning and understanding: An approach
to a unified view of information for information science. Aslib Proceedings,
59(4/5), 307–327.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2006). ICT and knowledge management systems. In D. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 230–236).
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing.
Beijerse, R. P. uit. (1999). Questions in knowledge management: Defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 94–109.
Belkin, N. J. (1978). Information concepts for information science. Journal of Documentation, 34(1), 55–85.
Bellinger, G., Castro, D., & Mills, A. (2004). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Available at http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm [Retrieved
on 9 August 2009].
Blair, D. C. (2002). Knowledge management: Hype, hope, or help? Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1019–1028.
Bouthillier, F. & Shearer, K. (2002). Understanding knowledge management and
information management: The need for an empirical perspective. Information
Research, 8(1), paper no. 141 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/81/paper141.html] [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2005). Knowledge management and information management: Review of empirical evidence. In Elena Maceviciute, & T. D. Wilson
(Eds.), Introducing information management: An information research reader (pp.
139–150). London: Facet Publishing.
Broadbent, M. (1998). The phenomenon of knowledge management: What does it
mean to the information profession? Information Outlook, 2(5), 23–36.
Brookes, B. C. (1980). The fundamental problem of information science. Part I: Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2, 125–133.
Buckland, M. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 351–360.
Chen, H. H. (2005). The working environment and changing role of corporate
librarians in Taiwan. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 56(11), 1227–1236.
Chong, Siong Choy & Choi, Yong Suk. (2005). Critical Factors in the Successful
Implementation of Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice volume 6 June Available at http://www.tlainc.com/articl90.htm
[Retrieved on 23 August 2009].
Chua, A. Y. K. (2009). The dark side of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(4), 32–40.
Clark, D. (2000). Knowledge Management. Available at http://www.nwlink.com/
∼Donclark/hrd/history/knowledge.html [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Corrall, S. (1999). Knowledge management: Are we in the knowledge management
business? http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue18/knowledge-mgt/#ref6 [Retrieved
10 August 2009].
Cronin, B. (1985). Introduction. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Information management: From
strategies to action (pp. vii–ix). London: Aslib.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2000). Knowledge management: Semantic drift or
conceptual shift? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 41,
294–306.
Doodewaard, M. van. (2006). Online knowledge sharing tools: Any use in Africa?
Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 2(3), 40–47.
Ekbia, H. R., & Hara, N. (2007). The quality of evidence in knowledge management
research: Practitioner versus scholarly literature. Journal of Information Science,
34(1), 1–17.
Fairer-Wessels, F. A. (1997). Information management education: Towards a holistic perspective. South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 65(2),
93–103.
Fricke, M. (2009). The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal
of Information Science, 35(2), 131–142.
Gannon-Leary, Pat & Fontainha, Elsa. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning
Papers, No. 5, September 2007 [Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract id=1018066] [Retrieved on 9 August 2009].
Gorman, G.E. (2004). The uniqueness of knowledge management—Or the
Emperor’s New Clothes. Available at http://info.emeraldinsight.com/librarians/
info/viewpoints/unique.htm [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A., & Rzevski, G. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to
knowledge management: ‘Hard’, ‘soft’ and ‘abstract’ issues. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(2), 90–102.
Hoven, J. van den. (2001). Information resources management: Foundations for
knowledge management. Information Systems Management, 18(2), 80–83.
Hsu, Ru-Ching, Lawson, D., & Liang, Ting-Peng. (2007). Factors affecting knowledge management adoption of Taiwan small and medium-sized enterprises.
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 4(1), 30–51.
Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work: A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organization. Åbo Akademis
Förlag - Åbo Akademi University Press.
424
G. Kebede / International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424
Ilkka, I. (2000). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 103–118.
Ingwersen, P. (1995). Information and Information Science. In Kent, Allen (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of library and information science: Volume 56, supplement 19, pp.
137–174.
Jakubik, M. (2007). Exploring the knowledge landscape: Four emerging views of
knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 6–19.
Jashapara, A. (2005). The emerging discourse of knowledge management: A new
dawn for information science research? Journal of Information Science, 31(2),
136–148.
Kakabadse, N. K., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2001). From tacit knowledge to
knowledge management: Leveraging invisible assets. Knowledge and Process
Management, 8(3), 137–154.
Kirk, J. (1999). Information in organizations: Directions for information management. Information Research, 4 (3) Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/43/paper57.html [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Lang, J. C. (2001). Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 43–57.
Liao, S. S., He, J. W., & Tang, T. H. (2004). A framework for context information
management. Journal of Information Science, 30(6), 528–539.
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and
translation—A knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management,
13(3), 118–131.
Lytle, R. H. (1986). Information resources management: 1981–1986. Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology, 21, 309–336.
Maceviciute, E. & Wilson, T.D. (2002). The Development of the Information Management Research Area, Information Research 7 (3) Available at:
http://InformationR.net/ir/7-3/paper133.html [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Maceviciute, E., & Wilson, T. (2005). Part D: Knowledge management. In E. Maceviciute, & T. D. Wilson (Eds.), Introducing information management: An information
research reader (pp. 137–138). London: Facet Publishing.
Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge management systems: Information and communications
technologies for knowledge management (third ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Makani, J. (2008). Knowledge management and international organizations: Perspectives on information professionals’ role. Libri, 58(4), 144–154.
Martin, B. (2008). Knowledge management. In C. Blaise (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (ARIST), vol. 42 (pp. 371–424). Medford, NJ:
Information Today, Inc.
McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
53(12), 1009–1018.
Meadow, C. T., & Yuan, W. (1997). Measuring the impact of information. Defining the
Concepts Information Processing and Management, 33(6), 697–714.
Morrow, N. Mac. (2001). Knowledge management. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), An introduction annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), vol. 35 (pp.
381–422). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Nath, V. (2000). Heralding ICT enabled knowledge societies: Way forward
for the developing countries. [Available at: http://members.tripod.com/
knownetwork/articles/heralding.htm] [Retrieved on 9 August 2009].
Nordin, M., Pauleen, J., & Gorman, G. E. (2009). Investigating KM antecedents: KM in
criminal justice system. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2), 4–20.
Oluic-Vukovic, V. (2001). From information to knowledge: Some reflections on the
origin of the current shifting towards knowledge processing and further perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
52(1), 54–61.
Ondari-Okemwa, E. (2006). Knowledge management in a research organization:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Libri, 56(1), 63–72.
Oppenheim, C., Stenson, J., & Wilson Richard, M. S. (2003). Studies on information
as an asset I: Definitions. Journal of Information Science, 29(3), 159–166.
Orzano, A. J., McInerney, C. R., Scharf, D., Tallia, A. F., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). A
knowledge management model: Implications for enhancing quality in health
care. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(3),
489–505.
OTEC (Oregon Technology in Education Council). (2007). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Available at http://otec.uoregon.edu/data-wisdom.htm
[Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Pang, T., Pablos-Mendez, A., & Jsselmuiden, C. (2004). From Bangkok to Mexico:
Towards a framework for turning knowledge into action to improve health
systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82(1), 719–810.
Passerini, K. (2007). Knowledge-driven development indicators: Still an eclectic
panorama. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(11), 115–128.
Ponelis, S., & Fairer-Wessels, F. A. (1998). Knowledge management: A literature
review. South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 66(1), 1–9.
Robinson, L. (2009). Information science: Communication chain and domain analysis. Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 578–591.
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy.
Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163–180.
Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(12), 1051–1063.
Sarrafzadeh, M., Martin, B., & Hazeri, A. (2006). LIS professionals and knowledge
management: Some recent perspectives. Library Management, 27(9), 621–635.
Savic, D. (1992). Evolution of information resource management. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 24(3), 127–138.
Schlögl, C. (2005). Information and knowledge management: Dimensions
and approaches. Information Research, 10(4) paper 235 [Available at
http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper235.html] [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Sinotte, M. (2004). Exploration of the field of knowledge management for the library
and information profession. Libri, 54, 190–198.
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in workplace. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311–321.
Summers, R., Oppenheim, C., Meadows, J., McKnight, C., & Kinnell, M. (1999). Information science in 2010: A Loughborough University view. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1153–1162.
Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood: N.J. Ablex
Publishing.
The World Bank. (1999). World Development Report 1998/99: Knowledge for Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Todd, R. J. (1999). Back to our beginnings: Information utilization, Bertram Brookes
and the fundamental equation of information science. Information Processing
and Management, 35, 851–870.
Trauth, E. M. (1989). Evolution of information resource management. Information
and Management, 16, 257–268.
UNCTAD. (2007). The least developed countries report, 2007: Knowledge,
technological learning and innovation for development. UN, New York
and Geneva [Available at: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.
asp?docid=8674&intItemID=4314&lang=1&mode=downloads] [Retrieved on 9
August 2009].
UNDP. (2003). Human Development Report 2003: Millennium Development Goals: A
compact among nations to end human poverty. New York: UNDP.
Vakkari, P. (1994). Library and information science: Its content and scope. In I. P.
Godden (Ed.), Advances in librarianship, vol. 18 (pp. 1–55). Burlington: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Vickery, B. (1997). Metatheory and information science. Journal of Documentation,
53(5), 457–476.
Widén-Wulff, G., Allen, D., Macevičiūtė, E., Moring, C., Papik, R., & Wilson, T.
(2005). Knowledge management/information management. In Leif Kajberg, &
Leif Lørring (Eds.), European curriculum reflections on library and information
science education (pp. 121–130). Copenhagen: The Royal School of Library and
Information Science.
Wild, R., & Griggs, K. (2008). A model of information technology opportunities for facilitating the practice of knowledge management. VINE, 38(4), 490–
506.
Wilson, T.D. (2002). The nonsense of knowledge management. Information
Research, 8(1), paper no. 144 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/81/paper144.html] [Retrieved 10 August 2009].
Yates-Mercer, P., & Bawden, D. (2002). Managing the paradox: The valuation of
knowledge and knowledge management. Journal of Information Science, 28(1),
19–29.
Zins, C. (2006). Redefining information science: From “information science” to
“knowledge science”. Journal of Documentation, 62(4), 447–461.
Zins, C. (2007a). Conceptions of information science. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 335–350.
Zins, C. (2007b). Conceptual approaches for defining data, information and knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4),
479–493.
Gashaw Kebede is an assistant professor at the School of Information Sciences,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He has worked as knowledge management consultant for international organizations mostly in Africa. His current research interests
include knowledge management, human information behavior, information systems management, and ICT for development. He holds an MSc in Information Science
from Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, and a PhD from University of Natal, South
Africa.