Knowledge Audit: its Learning Lessons
- Ajit Kumar
Documentation Officer
Institute of Applied Manpower
Research, Planning Commission,
GOI, Narela, Delhi-40
Abstract: Knowledge Audit lays a concrete foundation for any knowledge management programs. This paper gives brief
information about knowledge audit and its components i.e knowledge need analysis, knowledge inventory analysis, knowledge flow
analysis and knowledge mapping. The role of knowledge auditor and the knowledge audit methodology also described in this article.
The 8 “C”s audit i.e connectivity, content, community, culture, capacity, cooperation, commerce and capital are explained with the
suitable examples.
Keyword: Knowledge audit, Knowledge auditor, Knowledge inventory, Knowledge mapping, Knowledge audit methodology,
Knowledge management.
1. Introduction: Knowledge audits play a critical role in establishing contextual relevancy for any activity that has play in the
knowledge management/ knowledge leveraging arena of an organization (Moulton 2008). A knowledge audit (an assessment of the
way knowledge processes meet an organization’s knowledge goals) helps to understand the processes which constitute the activities
of a knowledge worker and see how well they address the “knowledge goals” of the organization (Lauer and Tanniru 2001).
Liebowitz defines a knowledge audit as a tool that assesses the potential stores of knowledge. It is the first part of any KM strategy.
By discovering that knowledge is possessed, then it is possible to find the most effective method of storage and dissemination. It can
then be used as the basis for evaluating the extent to which change needs to be introduced in an enterprise. A part of the knowledge
audit process is capturing “tacit” knowledge (Liebowitz et al. 2000). A knowledge audit is a planning document, which provides a
structural overview of a designated section of an organization's knowledge as well as details of the qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of the individual chunks of knowledge within that designated section. The document also identifies the knowledge
repositories in which those chunks reside. They feel that the knowledge audit is a scientific measurement of the state of affairs of
specified sections of corporate knowledge (Debenham and Clark 1994).
A knowledge audit helps to identify knowledge management needs, strengths, growth areas and risks in the agency. The focus of the
assessment is to identify key knowledge areas and to assess whether they are being effectively captured or shared. It involves
collating an inventory of available knowledge assets and resources in order to examine the gap between the ideal or desired
knowledge environment and the existing knowledge environment. Such gaps identified by a knowledge audit may impede
innovation, block opportunities for business improvement or hamper technology implementations in the agency. A Knowledge audit
attempts to evaluate if knowledge processes meet the organization goals (Perez-Soltero at el. 2006). Knowledge audits can be
conducted through a variety of means, including surveys, process maps, structured interviews and analysing competencies. A key
facet of a knowledge audit involves understanding the context and strategic intent of the agency or area audited. Audits can be
conducted at an agency level, business group level or section or team level. The outcomes and drivers of the area considered are
analysed, reviewed and examined.
Particular questions a knowledge audit could ask include:

What knowledge does the agency need to acquire or develop?

Where are knowledge flows impeded?

How can knowledge be better shared and organised?

What knowledge resources are currently used?

What are the current and future benchmarks for knowledge use?
2. Components / Constituents of Knowledge Audit:
A Knowledge audit would generally contain the following four major components:
2.1 Knowledge Needs Analysis: The major goal of a Knowledge Needs Analysis is to identify precisely what knowledge the agency
has and what knowledge they would require in the future in order to meet objectives and goals. The analysis can also measure the
skills and competency enhancement-needs and opportunities for training and development, corporate knowledge culture-practices such
as knowledge sharing attitude, collaboration, team spirit, rewards and recognitions and staff relationships with superiors, peers and
subordinates.
2.2 Knowledge Inventory Analysis: A Knowledge Inventory Analysis is a knowledge stock-take to identify and locate knowledge
assets and resources in the agency. This process involves counting, indexing, and categorising of tacit [hyperlink] and explicit
[hyperlink] knowledge. The analysis may involve a series of surveys and interviews in order to get relevant answers on tacit and
explicit knowledge that an agency may hold and have. By making comparison between knowledge inventory and the earlier analysis of
knowledge needs, an agency will be able to identify gaps in their agency's knowledge as well as areas of unnecessary duplication. In
case of explicit knowledge, this will include things like:
 What knowledge we have-numbers, types and categories of documents, database, libraries, intranet website, links and
subscriptions to external resources etc?
 Where the knowledge is-locations in the organization, and in its various systems?
 Organisation and access-how are knowledge resources oganised, how easy is it for people to find and access them?
 Purpose, relevance and ‘quality’-why do these resources exits, how relevant and appropriate are they for that purpose, are they
of good ‘quality’ e.g. up-to-date, reliable, evidence-based etc?
 Usage-are they actually being used, by whom, how often, what for?
In the case of tacit knowledge, the inventory will focus on people and look at things like:
 Who we have-numbers and categories of people
 Where they are-locations in departments, teams and buildings
 What they do-job levels and types
 What they know-academic and professional qualifications, core knowledge and experience
 What they are learning- on the job training, learning and development.
The knowledge inventory gives you a snapshot of your knowledge assets or resources. By comparing your inventory with your earlier
analysis of knowledge needs, you can begin to identify gaps in your organisation’s knowledge as well as areas of unnecessary
duplication (Paramasivan 2003)
2.3 Knowledge Flow Analysis: A Knowledge Flow Analysis looks at knowledge resources in the agency, from where it is to where it
is needed. In other words, it is to determine how people in an agency find the knowledge they need, and how do they share the
knowledge they have. The K-Flow Analysis looks at people, processes and systems. An analysis of knowledge flows will allow an
agency to further identify gaps in their agency's knowledge and areas of duplication. It also highlights examples of good practice that
can be built on, as well as blockages to knowledge flows and effective use. It will show where an agency needs to focus attention in its
knowledge management initiatives in order to get knowledge moving from where it is to where it is needed. Again, the knowledge flow
analysis looks at both explicit and tacit knowledge, and at people, processes and systems:
● The relative focus in this stage is on people: their attitudes towards, habits and behaviours concerning, and skills in, knowledge
sharing and use. This will usually require a combination of questionnaire-based surveys followed up with individual interviews and
facilitated group discussions.
● In terms of processes, you will need to look at how people go about their daily work activities and how knowledge seeking, sharing
and use are (or are not) part of those activities. In most organisations, there will be pockets of good knowledge management practice
(though they may not be called knowledge management). You will also need to look at what policies and practices currently affect the
flows and usage of information and knowledge, for example are there existing policies on things like information handling, records
management, web publishing? Are their other wider policies and practices that, while not directly related to knowledge management,
act as enablers or barriers to good knowledge practice?
● On the systems side, some assessment is needed of key capabilities that will be used in any recommended actions or solutions. This
includes the technical infrastructure: information technology systems, content management, accessibility and ease of use, and current
actual levels of use. In short, to what extent do your systems effectively facilitate knowledge flows, and help to connect people with the
information and other people they need.
An analysis of knowledge flows will allow you to further identify gaps in your organisation's knowledge and areas of duplication; it
will also highlight examples of good practice that can be built on, as well as blockages and barriers to knowledge flows and effective
use. It will show where you need to focus attention in your knowledge management initiatives in order to get knowledge moving from
where it is to where it is needed (Paramasivan 2003).
2.4 Knowledge Mapping: Knowledge Mapping is a navigation aid to explicit information and tacit knowledge, showing the
importance and the relationships between knowledge stores and dynamics. The knowledge map, an outcome of synthesis, portrays the
sources, flows, constraints and sinks (losses or stopping points) of knowledge within an agency.
A knowledge map is a visual representation of an organisation's knowledge. There are two common approaches to knowledge mapping:
● The first simply maps knowledge resources and assets, showing what knowledge exists in the organization and where it can be found
● The second also includes knowledge flows, showing how that knowledge moves around the organization from where it is to where it
is needed.
Clearly the second approach provides the most complete picture for the knowledge auditor. However, the first is also useful, and in
some organisations is made available to all staff to help people locate the knowledge they need.
Figure 1: Knowledge Audit Constituents
Identify
Knowledge
needs
Draw up a
Knowledge
inventory
Analyze
Knowledge
flows
Create
Knowledge
maps
Source: ADB. 2007. Auditing the Lessons Architecture. Manila.
3. Knowledge Auditor: A Knowledge Auditor does not attempt to develop a comprehensive inventory of knowledge assets, but works on
the basis of developing a prioritized list of assets. These are identified by analyses of core business processes and critical management
decision areas.







Analysis of key documents e.g. plans, process models and description
Analysis of current information systems
Interview with representative cross-section of staff
Information requirements questionnaires
Analysis on information and knowledge flows
Development of knowledge maps
Creation of an action plan.
4. Knowledge Audit Methodology:
There are many benefits in applying a KM framework or methodology: It offers legitimacy, provides consistent language, outlines a
process, provides a checklist, offers a source of ideas and addresses non-technical aspects (Robertson 2002).
Gartner Group (2000) contends, for example, that a “knowledge audit” needs to be undertaken during the initial stages of the KM program.
They state that the audit should identify the knowledge requirements of all processes which are heavily dependent on intellectual assets and
which underlie the targeted business objectives. The audit ought to identify knowledge sources which can fulfill these knowledge
requirements and the high-level business process steps where that knowledge must be applied.
Company executives would do better by giving serious consideration to undertaking a knowledge audit—even a small one. It is perfectly
acceptable, and highly recommended, that an organization begins a corporate knowledge audit by auditing one small team, unit,
department, or a business process (Hylton 2002).
A knowledge audit will consist of two major tasks, each of which can be done without the other. The first, often called knowledge mapping,
involves locating repositories of knowledge throughout the organization. This effort is primarily technological and usually prepares the way
for creating a knowledge database. The knowledge mapping process is relatively straightforward. It takes an inventory of what people in the
organization have written down or entered into the information systems, besides identifying the outside sources of information that
employees use (such as public or university libraries, websites or subscription services). Finding and organizing all that data may be time-
consuming, but it is not conceptually difficult. The second and more intensive category of audit task attempts to capture the patterns of
knowledge flow in the organization. This knowledge flow audit examines how people process information that ultimately determines how
well an organization uses and shares its knowledge (Stevens 2000).
While there may be several ways of conducting a knowledge audit (Skyrme 2002; Liebowitz et al. 2000; Burnet et al. 2004; Jones 2005;
Jackson 2005; Cheung et al., 2005), knowledge audits generally consist of the identification of knowledge needs through the use of
questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. Knowledge audits also focus on the development of a knowledge inventory with thrust on the
types of knowledge available; where this knowledge is located; how it is maintained and stored; what it is used for and how relevant it is;
and the analysis of knowledge flows in terms of people, processes and systems. The creation of a knowledge map and an audit detailed
report are an integral part of knowledge audits.
Given the apparent lack of specific methodologies in the scientific literature and business practice (Liebowitz et al. 2000), we can
frequently find references to reputable consulting enterprises which own proprietary knowledge audit methodologies. Such methodologies
are not publicly available but can be acquired for a fee, if one wishes to implement KM within an enterprise. This may not always be an
economically viable option for an enterprise, nor does it provide any opportunities for the client to compare the suitability of each
technique. Despite the lack of published accounts that precisely detail how to execute a standard KM audit methodology, it is possible to
extract sufficient insight from the existing literature to develop a basis for the creation of a knowledge audit methodology (Schwikkard and
du Toit 2004).
In 2007, OED particularized a knowledge audit methodology, its principal means, and associated time frame, to be applied in four phases
spanning about 5 months. The methodology draws on the elements of knowledge, relationships, context, and external environment;
interfaces; and architecture deemed most relevant to the department. The four phases are (i) knowledge audit preparations, (ii) knowledge
audit analysis, (iii) knowledge audit review, and (iv) business planning. Box 1 enumerates possible related steps and activities and Box 2
sketches an indicative time frame for implementation. Since knowledge management is a process for optimizing and leveraging the stores
of knowledge in an organization, the accent placed (concurrently or in turn) on each constituent of a knowledge audit will depend on where
an organization is and where it wants to be. Boxes 1–2 should be interpreted in view of that. A second important caveat is that the following
section on the survey of perceptions conducted by OED in 2007, which emphasized identification of knowledge needs, should not be taken
as all that a knowledge audit can be.
Box 1: Knowledge Audit Methodology-Suggested Steps and Activities
Phase 1
1. Plan Knowledge Audit
• Identify objectives.
• Conduct background investigations.
• Hold preliminary discussions.
3. Delineate Interface Characteristics
• OED–OED
• OED–ADB
• OED–developing member countries
•OED–international
evaluation
community
Phase 2
2. Assimilate Core Knowledge Activities
• Identify.
• Create.
• Store.
• Share.
• Use.
4. Identify and Liaise with Key 5. Select and Design Audit
Audiences
Forms
• Agree on interface representatives.
•
Consider
interface
• Make initial contact.
characteristics.
•
Formulate
audit
deliverables.
6. Identify Knowledge Needs
• Investigate what important knowledge the interfaces
need to meet goals and objectives.
• Determine what important knowledge is available and
what is missing.
• Consider, with attention to people, business processes,
and technology, how faster access to important
knowledge might be secured.
7. Draw up Knowledge Inventory
• Track down explicit knowledge products and services,
their locations, purposes, relevance, and accessibility.
• Make out tacit knowledge about who the key
audiences are, where they are, what they do, what they
know, and what they learn.
• Identify gaps in tacit and explicit knowledge.
8. Analyze Knowledge Flows
• Examine how knowledge products and services flow in
OED, and to and from its interfaces, with attention to
people, business processes, and technology.
• Characterize stock-based and flow-based knowledge,
trends and patterns, and efficiency and effectiveness.
9. Create Knowledge Maps
• Locate knowledge products and services and map out
flows, constraints, and sinks.
• Map knowledge gaps.
• Analyze social networks.
Phase 3
10. Assess Knowledge Audit
Findings
• Analyze evidence.
• Suggest courses and means of action.
• Devise improvements.
11. Discuss Knowledge Audit
• Carry out after-action reviews and
retrospect.
• Conduct in-house workshops.
Phase 4
13. Decide on Knowledge Management Initiatives
• Prioritize knowledge management initiatives.
• Design knowledge management initiatives.
12. Close Knowledge Audit
• Incorporate suggestions for
improvement.
• Identify matters for followup.
14. Formulate Business Plans
• Propose capital, operational, administrative, and
recurrent expenditures.
• Submit annual budget document.
Source: ADB. 2007. Auditing the Lessons Architecture. Manila
Box 2: Indicative Knowledge Audit Time Frame
Phase
1
2
3
4
Activity
Knowledge Audit Preparations
Plan knowledge audit
Assimilate core knowledge activities
Delineate interface characteristics
Identify and liaise with key audiences
Select and design audit forms
Knowledge Audit Analysis
Identify knowledge needs
Draw up knowledge inventory
Analyze knowledge flows
Create knowledge maps
Knowledge Audit Review
Assess knowledge audit findings
Discuss knowledge audit
Close knowledge audit
Business Planning
Decide on knowledge management initiatives
Formulate business plans
Month1
Month2
Month3
Month4
Month5
Source: ADB. 2007. Auditing the Lessons Architecture. Manila
4.1 : The “8 Cs” Audit of Successful Knowledge Management:
Rao, evolved a framework for assessing and enabling success of 21 st century KM Practices, called the “8 Cs” framework (parameters that
begins with the letter C): connectivity, content, community, culture, capacity, cooperation, commerce, and capital (Table1). In other words,
successful KP practices can be facilitated by adequate employee access to KM tools, user friendly work-oriented content, communities of
practice, a culture of knowledge, learning capacity, a spirit of cooperation, commercial and other incentives, and carefully measured capital
investments and returns.
Each of these “8Cs” is critical for success of a KM practice, and inadequate focus on even one of these parameters can cause the practice to
flounder. Let us look at this framework in action in the analysis of KM practices around the world.
Table1: KM Framework: The “8Cs” audit
1. Connectivity
2. Content
What connectivity devices, bandwidths, interfaces,
technologies, and tools do your knowledge workers have
when they are in the office or on the road?
What knowledge assets are relevant to the context of your
workflow, and what are your strategies for codification,
classification, archival, retrieval, usage, and tracking?
3. Community
4. Culture
5. Capacity
6. Cooperation
7. Commerce
8. Capital
What are the core communities of practice aligned with
your business, and what organizational support do you
have for identifying, nurturing, and harnessing them?
Does your organization have a culture of learning where
your employees thirst of knowledge, trust one another, and
have visible support from their management?
What are your strategies for building knowledge –centric
capacity in your employees, for instance via workshops,
white papers, industry consortia, and universities?
Do your employees have a spirit of open cooperation, and
does your organization cooperate on the KM front with
business partners, industry consortia, and universities?
What commercial and other incentives do you use to
promote your KM practice? How are you “pricing” the
contribution, acceptance and usage of knowledge assets?
What percentage and amount of your revenues are
invested in your KM practices, and how are you measuring
their usage and benefits in monetary and qualitative terms?
In terms of the “8 Cs” framework, the Rao (2008) did more exhaustive and comprehensive benchmarking studies, as under:
4.1.1 Connectivity: All featured companies have robust, connectivity for employees to the intranet and thereby to standardized KM tools,
knowledge repositories, and communities of practices. KM at Fujitsu Consulting got off to a bumpy start partly because of lack of
standardization of connectivity and KM platform. Many companies have also identified wireless connectivity as the next level of knowledge
mobilization to workers likes sales staff. Open Text has launched Livelink Wireless, which is already being used by its sales staff on the
road. Information mobilization and real-time expert via PDAs and SMS are high priorities at SunPhil (Filipino subscribers are the heaviest
users of SMS work wide).
4.1.2 Content: The featured IT companies have all evolved sophisticated strategies to manage content. These include EDS’s Techlore
technical knowledge repository, EMC’s Knowledge base for tech support, Fujitsu Consulting’s ProjectFinder, i2’s Knowledge Base abd
Project Workbench, knowledge asset editors at Infosys, and i-flex’s Project Closure Documents (PCD). SAS has formally designated
knowledge support officers who assist busy employees in creating, editing, and translating knowledge assets. Improper planning at an
earlier stage led to rampant database proliferation and knowledge clutter at Fujitsu Consulting, which was subsequently rectified. Digital
content-management platforms have completely transformed the merged entity SunPhil, which had an archaic paper-based environment
prior to merger.
4.1.3 Community: All profiled IT companies have sophisticated top-down and bottom-up strategies for large numbers of communities of
practice (CoP), such as EDS’s 114 communities of practice, Fujitsu Consulting’s “The Knowledge Underground,”MITRE’s Techical
Exchange Meetings (TEMs) and XpertNet, Oracle’s “Professional Communities,” and Open Text’s Competitive Intelligence Forum and
Customer Dashboard. IBM uses an approach called the “HealthCheck” to determine the maturity of its CoPs.
4.1.4 Culture: A culture of knowledge-centricity and innovation right from the top levels of management was present in all featured
companies. EDS has a Knowledge Management Office and an innovation engine portal for employees to submit innovative ideas. EMC
aims to have KM culture ultimately nurtured via peer pressure. I2 preserves its start-up oriented culture of learning fast. IBM conducts
extensive research on KM and formulates concepts like the Cognizant Enterprise Maturity Model. i-flex has the QPatiquize program and KWebcast conferences with experts. Infosys uses mottos like “Learn Once, Use Anywhere.” Oracle has a network of change agents. Novell
has promoted a culture of synergy during its acquisition of companies like Cambridge Technology Partners and SilverStream. And MITRE
align KN systems with three corporate values: ‘people in partnership,” “excellence that counts,” and “outcomes in the public interest.”
Quiver (acquired by Inktomi) had to deal with cultural obstacles like the “engineering versus the rest” attitude and “sell and forget” mindset;
its merger with a larger company also required cultural adjustment to harness KM. Fujitsu Consulting went through a period of “Cultural
Confusion” in the early days, which even led to a period of “dis-enlightenment” with KM until the program was put back on track. In a QAI
survey of KM in 100 software companies, three out of 10 projects on knowledge management were found to fail because of insufficient
support from a change management roll out plan.
4.1.5 Capacity: Building capacity for knowledge-centric behaviors strong support from all featured IT companies: For instance, EMC has
formal programs, Hughes Software hosts KM workshops and a day-long knowledge-sharing event, and i-flex invest heavily in software
process certification for its employees. QAI recommends the use of external consultants for capacity building in KM. Inktomi provides its
knowledge workers with training on cost-performance activity, Unified Modeling techniques, statistical charting processes and job rotation
opportunities to understand knowledge impacts on performance measures and productivity gains.
4.1.5 Cooperation: The more forward-looking IT companies promote a strong culture of internal cooperation between employees and
business units, and external cooperation with industry consortia and universities. For instance, EDS conducts collaborative research with a
top U.S. business school. HSS taps into external sources of knowledge such as industry consortia and collaborative research with
universities. IBM conducts extensive research in client-focused consortiums such as the IBM Institute of Knowledge-based organizations.
MITRE’s Knowledge Partners initiative includes contributions from highly qualified MITRE retirees. Open Text has a Knowledge
Management Advisory Board with representative from about 20 of its top customers. Oracle plans to extend KM beyond the enterprise via
the Oracle Technology Network and Oracle Partner Network. And Xerox is active in sponsorship of KM forums and participation in
consortia on learning, knowledge, and productivity such as APQC. In an inspiring move, SunPhil is even taking the KM message to the
national level through its active support of the Knowledge Management Association of the Philippines (KMAP).
4.1.6 Commerce: Many of the featured IT companies have a mix of commercial and non-commercial incentives to “price” and reward
knowledge contributions. Infosys had devised Knowledge Currency Units (KCUs) whereby employees can award points to knowledge
assets posted by their colleagues, and can also earn points when their own posted knowledge assets are utilized or ranked by their
colleagues; these can be cashed in for gifts at a local e-tailer. MITRE has a $5,000 president’s KM Achievement award (presented by the
CEO_, 10 Corporate KM Recognition award of $ 1,000 each (presented by the CIO), and an award for the best paper that makes an external
contribution to KM theory/ practice. EDS has an EDS Fellows Program for top performers in the company and the annual EDS Innovation
Forum for top innovative thinkers from across the globe; awards are given to the patent of the year, innovator of the year, and community of
the year. IBM has a corporate-wide award called Knowledge Advantage and individual business units given their own KM awards.
4.1.7. Capital: Substantial investments were made in the KM systems of the featured companies, and strict metrics adopted to assess RoI.
Xeros’s Eureka is credited with solving more than 350,000 problems annually that otherwise would have been recreated by other customer
service engineers (CSEs) waiting both parts and labor as they try to find a solution –parts and labor savings are in excess of $15 million
annually, with increased customer satisfaction and faster learning cycles for the CSEs. At EDS, Km metrics are driven by the Intellectual
Capital Balance Sheet. EMC’s KM practice today has helped improve worldwide sharing of solutions and shorten learning curves. Fujitsu
Consulting has delivered a measurable improvement in gross margin via KM tool like ProjectFinder. i2 has used knowledge-centric
strategies to position new products to new clients in less time. IBM uses systemic metrics to ensure that KM practices help corporate
business objective like innovation, responsiveness, efficiency, and competency. Infosys’KM portal KnowledgeShop helps the company
improve teamwork, refine software, re-use code, and meet growth expectations. At MITR, tangible benefits of KM have been realized in
reduced operating costs, improved staff productivity, and cost avoidance.
In sum, paying close attention to all the parameters of the “8 Cs” framework has helped the profiled IT companies develop successful KM
practices. The most successful IT companies also have KM practices that have been successively benchmarked as among the best in the
world.
Conclusion: A complete knowledge audit will evaluate the company’s knowledge environment, its knowledge ecology, its knowledge use
and sharing: in essence the knowledge enhancing social and behavioral culture of the people within the company. Most importantly, the
knowledge audit investigates the perceptions of knowledge management effectiveness by the knowledge people (Paramasivan 2003). As
information and communication technologies continue to grow rapidly and dominate in the 21 st century, KM applications will become
critical in knowledge life cycle, from the knowledge creation stage to the knowledge dissemination stage. The expanded application of
Knowledge Management through content management, competitive intelligence, project management, environmental scanning, and the
knowledge audit have resulted in economic benefits and healthy competition in every sector and all aspects of human life (Srikantaiah
2008).
Bibliographical Details:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Burnet, S.,Illingworth, L and Webster, L. 2004. Knowledge Auditing and Mapping: A
Pragmatic Approach. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11(1):25-37
Cheung, C.F, Ko K C, Chu K F and Lee W B. 2005. Systematic Knowledge Auditing with
Applications. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, August Issue.
Debenham, J. And J. Clark. 1994. The Knowledge Audit. Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 11( 3)
Gartner Group. 2000. Mapping Knowledge to the Process: Directions to Success. Advisory
Research Note
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
http://www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/-data/assests/pdf-file/0006/53187/knoeledge-audit.pdf ( accessed on 11,
July, and 2013)
Hylton, A. 2002. A Knowledge Audit Must be People-Centered and People Focused.
http://www.annhylton.com.siteContents/writings-home.htm (accessed on 9, July, and 2013)
Jackson, P. 2005. A Reflective Practitioner’s Confessional Account of Developing a Knowledge
Inventory: A Grounded Methodology. Journal of Knowledge Management, October Issue.
Jones, H. 2005. Risking Knowledge Management. Library Management, Vol. 26 (6/7):397-407
Lauer, T W and Tanniru, M. 2001. Knowledge Management Audit—A Methodology and Case
Study. Australian Journal of Information Systems (Special Issue on Knowledge Management):
23-41.
Liebowitz J, Rubenstein-Montano B, McCaw D, Buchwalter J and Browning C. 2000.
The Knowledge Audit. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7(1): 3-10.
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano B.,McCaw D, Buchwalter J. and Browning C. 2000. The
Knowledge Audit. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 (1): 3-10
Moulton, L. W. 2008. Knowledge audits: Establishing a context for leveraging knowledge. In
Knowledge Management in Practice: Connections and Context, pp.79-93 edited by T. Kanti
Srikantaiah and Michael E. D. Koening .New Delhi: Ess Ess Publications, 519pp.
Paramasivan, Thirumoorthy. 2003. Knowledge audit. The Chartered Accountant, November, pp.
498-506 (Access from http://icai.org/resource-file/11294p498-506.pdf on 10, July, and 2013)
Perez-Soltero, B. Valenzuela, et al. 2006. Knowledge Audit Methodology With Emphasis on
Core Processes. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS),
Costa Blanca, Alicante, Spain, July 6-7, 2006.
Rao, Madanmohan. 2008. Knowledge Management: Best Practices in the InfoTech Sector. In
Knowledge Management in Practice: Connections and Context, pp.257-272 edited by T. Kanti
Srikantaiah and Michael E. D. Koening .New Delhi: Ess Ess Publications, 519pp.
Robertson
J.
2002.
Benefits
of
a
KM
Framework.
http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200207/se_07_31_02a.html (accessed on 10, July, and
2013)
Schwikkard, DB and du Toit A S A. 2004. Analising Knowledge Requirements: A Case Study.
Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 56 (2):104-111
Skyrme, D. 2002. Knowledge Audit. http://www.skyrme.com/services/kmaudit.htm (accessed on
9, July, 2013)
Srikantaiah, T. Kanti. 2008. Knowledge management expansion: content management, project
management, competitive intelligence, environmental scanning, and knowledge audit. In
Knowledge Management in Practice: Connections and Context, pp.17-41 edited by T. Kanti
Srikantaiah and Michael E. D. Koening .New Delhi: Ess Ess Publications, 519pp.
Stevens, L. 2000. Knowing What Your Company Knows: A Knowledge Audit is Necessary
Precursor
to
a
New
KM
Initiative.
http://www.destinationscm.com/km/dcrm_km_article.asp?id=475 (accessed on 9, July, and 2013)