Managing Codified Knowledge
45
Michael H. Zack
A framework for
aligniHfi organizational and technical
resources and
capabilities to
leverage explicit
knowledge and
expertise.
Michael H.Zack is the
Patrick Rand Helen C.Wilsh
Research Professor, Colleiie
of Business Administratio I.
Northeastern Universitv.
Sloan Management Review
Summer 1911
Leading iiianagcmcnt and organization
theorists have popularized the concept of
treating organizational knowledge as a
\'aluaf)le strategic asset.' They advise that
to remain competitive, an organization must
efficiently and effectively create, locale,
capture, and share knowledge and expertise in carder to appiy that knowledge to
solve prol.")lems and exploit opportunities.
As more firms liegin to incorporate knowledge management into their overall business strategy, many are showing tremendous interest in implementing knowledge
management processes and technologies.
today are fully capable of developing and
leveraging critical organizational knowledge to improve their performance.- Many
organizations are so complex that knowledge is fragmented, difficult to locate and
share, and therefore redundant, inconsistent, or not used at all. In today'-s environment of rapid change and technological
discontinuity, even knovv'ledge and expertise that can be shared often quickly
becomes obsolete. However, while the
popular press calls for effectively managing knowledge, almost no research has
been done regarding bow to do it.
Although knowledge management is gaining wider accei;>Uince, few organizations
This article focuses on how to configure a
firm's resources and capabilities to lever-
Zacli
age its codified knowledge. I refer to this broadly as
a kftowk'dge maucigcnieiit drchitccture. I based this
framework on research that was nintivatcd by several
46
• What are the characteristics (jf explicitk' c
knowledge and how sh(uild (jigani/ali()ns ihink
about nutnaging ii?
• What role should information technolog\' play?
• How are organizational capabilities and inlormiilion
technology best integrated and ajiplicd tc) man^iging
knowledge?
• What lessons ha\'e companies learnetl in these
endea\'ors?
To address these questions. I first describe the cliaracteristics of explicit knowledge and its relationship
to competitive advantage. Building on research and
knowledge aboiil the design of intornuiiion prodiicis,'
I describe an architecture for manjgiiig explicit knowledge. I use that framework lo deii\e two fLinclamentai and complementary' appi'oaches, each of whit, h is
illustrated hy a case study. I conLkide wilh .1 sumnuivw of kev issues and the less(jns leained.
What Is Knowledge?
Knowledge is commonly distinguished from data antl
information. Data represent obseivations or fads out
of context that are, therefore, not tlirectly nieuninglLil.
Information results from placing data within some
meaningful context, often in the form of a message.
Knowledge is that which we come to believe and
value on the basis of the meaninglully oigani/etl ucctinuilation of inlbrmation (mes,sages) throLigh expetience, communication, oi' infeience,' Kntiwledge can
be viewed both as a thinf> to be stored and manipulated and as a process of simultaneously knowing antl
acting — that is. applying expertise,' As a pi^actical
matter, organizations WK^^^d to manage kncnvledge both
as object (ind process.
Knowledge can be tacil or explicit.' Tacit knowledge
is subconsciously understood and applied, difficult to
articLilate, developed from tlirect experience and
aclion, and usually shared thi'ough highly interactive
conversation, stoiytelling. and shared experience. In
contrast, explicit knowledge is more [precisely antl
formally articulated, allhoiigh remo\ed hom the origi
nal context of creation or use (e.g.. an abstr;ict mathematical formula derived from physical experiments
or a training manual tlescribing lu>\\ (o close LI sale).
Zack
Explicit knowledge is more precisely
and formally articulated, although
removed from the original context of
creation or use.
K\j)ii<,it knowk'dge pl.iyN .in increasingK laiger role
in oigani/ations, and niLiny consider it the most
important factor ol production in the knowledge
economy, (hnagine an organization without procedure
manuals, product literature, or ct>mputer software.)
Knowledge may be of se\'eral types,' all of which can
be made explicil:
• l)cclarati\e knowleclge is about (lescnhiii,i> something, A shared, explicil understanding ot contepls.
eategoiies, and descriptors lays the foundation for
effective comnuinicaiion and knowledge sharing in
organi/ati(jns,
• Procedural know letlge is about hatf something
occurs or is [lerfoi'med. Shared explicit prcKedmal
knowledge LIVN a toiiiKlation for elTitientK coordinated aclion in oiganizations,
• Causal knowledge is about icby something occLirs.
Shared explicit caLisal knowledge, often in the form
of organi/alional ,^tories, enables orgLinizalions to
cooixlinate sirak'gy for achieving goals or outcomes,
Knowletlgc also may ratige Irom the general to the
specilic:"
• General know ietlge iN broatl, olten publii-'K available, and inde[")endent of particular e\ent>. Because
ihe ctintext of general knowledge is cotiimonly
shared, firms can more easily and meaningfully codify
antl exchange it — especially among different knowletlge or practice comiiumities,
• SjX'eific knowletlge. in ct)ntrast. is context-specific.
c:otlifying sjK'cific knowledge so that it is meaningiul
across an organi/alion ret|tiires ihat a firm descrilie its
conicxt Lilong wiili the tocLtl knowletlge. This, iti Uirn.
requires explicitly dehning contextual categories and
relationshi|)s that are meaningfLil aci'oss knowletlge
communities. To ,>ee how tlifficiili (antl i[n|)ortant)
this may be. ask people Iroiii tlittereiit [larts o! your
oigani/ation to tiefine a customer, an order, or even
your major lines of business, antl oiiseive how much
the respon.s(.-,s tlilicr,"
Sloan Management Review
Summer 1999
Explicating Knowledge
Ht'tc-ctivc pcrtoi'mtncc- antl growth in knowledgeiniL'nsivc organizations rc'tjuircs integrating and sharing highK' clistribiitt'cl knowledge." Howt'\x-r. apjiropriatcl\- c.Kplitatii g tacit knowledge so it can be vtTiciently and mcaningt'Lilly shared and rcapplied, especially outside the originating community, is one of
the least understood aspects of knowledge management, ^'et organisations must not shy away from
attempting to explicate, share, and leverage tacit, spccific knowledge. This sugge.sts a more fundamental
challenge, namel'/, determining which knowledge an
organization shoi.id make explicit and which \l
shoukl lea\'e tacil — a balance that can atfcct competitive performance.
Knowledge may :)e inherently tacit or seem tacit
betause no one has yet articulated it, usually because
of sociai constraints," Articulating particular types of
knowledge may not be cullurally legitimate — that is,
challenging wliat the firm knows may not be socially
or pcjlitically correct, or the organization may be
unable to see be;,'onci its habits and customary practices. And, of course, making private knowledge publicly acce.ssible n ay result in power redistribution ihal
certain organizational cultures may .strongly resist. In
addition, intelleclual constraints — that is, the lack oi
a formal language' or model for articulating tacit
knowledge — m.iy impede efforts to make it explicit.
When one compares the potential explicability of a
body of knowlecge to whether a firm has articulated
that knowledge, four outcomes are possible (see
Figure I). If left anarticulated, potenlially explicable
knowledge represents a lost opportLinity to efficiently
share and. thus, everage that knowledge, A competitor, by articLilaiing a similar body of knowledge so it
can he rcnitinely integrated and applied, ma\- gain a
competitive advantage in the marketplace. However,
attempting lo ma ie inherently inarticulable knov\ledge
explicit may resull in losing the essence of that knowledge, causing performance to suffer. Determining
when to make articulable knowledge explicit (i.e.,
exploiting an op :>ortunity) and when to leave inarticulable knowletlgj in its "nati\e" form (res[")ecting both
the inherent strengths and limits of tacit knowledge)
is central to man;,ging an appropriate balance between
tacit and explicit knowledge.
Organizations ofien do not challenge the way they
store, treat, cjr pass on knowledge, which may result
Sloan Manayement Review
Summer 1999
in managers blindly accepting the apparent tacitness
of some t\'pes of knowledge, Mrs, Fields Original
Cookies de\eloped process knowledge <i,e,, cookie
baking) to an ex]')licab!e le\el and articulated the
process in recipes that resull in cookies of consistently high quality throughout the franchise network.'Ray Kroc. founder of McDonald s. gaini'd tremendous
leverage in articulating and routinizing the process of
hamburger making to produce a consistent (if not
gourmet) level of quality. But when imagination and
flexibiliiy are iniportani, knowledge routinization may
be inappropriate. It is the manager's responsibility to
know the difference.
Thus far. I have detined explicit knowledge, discussed
some of its characteristics, and made a case fbr explicating knowledge, AlthoLigh explicil knowledge repre,sents only part of an organization's intellectual
landscape, it is crucial in a firm's overall knovs'ledge
strategy. Next, I describe the frameworks and architectures needed tor managing explicit kntjwleclge.
Knowledge Management Architecture
The management of explicit knowledge utilizes four
primary resources (see /-'ignre 2):'''
• Repositories of explicit knov\iedge.
• Refineries for accumulating, refining, managing,
and distributing the knowieelge,
• Organization roles to execute and manage ihe
refining process,
• Information technologies to sLipport the repositories and processes.
Knowledge Repository
Design of a knowledge repositoiy reilects two basic
Figute 1
Outcomes for Explicating Knowledge
S/ . Exploited
' ":'••: opportunity
Inappropriately
explicated
Yes
Lost
opportunity
Appropriately
unexplicated
No
Explicated^
Zack
47
Figure 2
The Architecture of Information Products
Knowledge Platform
Knowledge Views
Repository
• Structure
• Content
• Content
• Format
• Presentation context
48
Storage
Acquisition
Refinement
Distribution
Presentation
Retrieval
Refinery
Technology Infrastructure
Organizational Infrastructure
Source Adapted from M H Meyer and M H Zack, "Thfi Design •! Infaimalion Products," Sloan MumigQuieni Rmew. voljme 37, Spring 1996, p 47
Figure 3
Composite Knowledge Repositories
Module A
Module B
Composite Platform
Module C
components ol knowledge as an object: slrucliire
and coHli'iit.^' Knowledge structures provide the context for interpreting act unuilaled content. It ;i re[io,sitoiT were conceived as a "knowledge plattbrni." a
firm coLild deri\'c many views of the content from a
particular repositt>ry structure. Hach view of the
repository may differ on the basis of its content, foi"nuit, and presentation context." A liigli degree u\
\ie\ving tlexibilit)' enables users to cK'namicalK' altei'
Lincl interactively combine views to nxjre easily apply
the knowledge lo new contexts and circumstances.
Knowledge-as-ob|ect becomes knovvledge-as-[:irocess.
Zack
Module D
The basic .structLiral element is the ki/oiiiedge iiiiil. a
formally defined, atomic packet of knowledge content
thai tan be laiieled, iiKiexed. sioretl. retrieveti. and
manipulated. The format, size, and content of knowledge units may vary, depending on the type of
explicit knowledge being stored and the context of
its Lise. The rejiosiion- structtire also includes stheme.s
toi' linking and cross-referencing knowledge units.
These links may represent conce|5tual associations,
ordei'ed se(.|Lientes. cau.salily, or other relationships.
de(ieiiding on the type of knowledge being stored.
Sloan Managemenl fleview
Suinmei 1999
To rcflcci a full ningc of explicit organi/ational knowleclge, firms nuist ,stri\t.' to record in iheir repositories:
• Meaningful concepts. caleg'""i'-'s- ^mtl tleliiiilions
(tleclaiati\e knowledge).
• Processes, actions, and sec]uence.s of e\'ents (procedural knowledge).
• Rationale for aLlions or conclusions (Lausal knowledge).
• CireLiinstances and intentions ot knowledge de\elopnient and app ieation (specific coniextiial knowledge).
• LinkLiges amorg the \'arioLis types ol knowledge.
Such a icposiiop. when inde,\e(.l using appropriate
concepts and categories, can i^rovide the organi/aiion
with nieaningtul access to its content. The repositoiy
should accoiiiincdate changes or additions t(j the
tii'iii's knowledge (e.g.. by linking annotations), as
suhset|Lienl aiithoi.s and creators ada[:)t the knowledge
for use in acidilional conte,\ts.
A knowletlge phtforiii nia\ consist ot se\'eral repositories, eaeh with a structure appropriate lo a particLilar type of knowledge or eonient. The.se repositories
may lie logically linked to form a composite or "virtLial" lepositoi"}'. the content of each jiroviding context for interpret ng the contenl ot the others (sec
Figure J). Tor e>.am[')le. [irodtict literature, best-sales
practices, and c( nipetitoi' intelligence for a particular
market iiiighl be stored separ^itely luit viewed as
thoLigh containet.l in one repositon.
Knowledge Refinery
The refiner)- rep e.sents the process for creating and
distrihuting the knowledge contained in a repository'.
This prtK'ess includes five stages (see Figure 2>:
An organization either creates information and knowledge or acc|Liires it frotn variotis internal antl exlernal sources.
• RcfineDiciil. l^jfore adtling cajitured knowleclge to
a repositoi-)-. an organization suhjecls ii {o valueadding processe-i (refining), such as cleansing, labeling, indexing, si'iting, abstracting, suindardi/ing. integrating, ancl ree;,tegorizing.
• Storage coid rclrieval. This stage bridges upstream
repositoiy creati'jn and downstream knowledge distribution,
• Distrihiitioii. This stage comprises the mechanisms
an organization uses to make repositoty content
accessible.
• I'lvsciiliilioii. The eontext in which an organization
Sloan Management Review
Slimmer 19S9
u.ses knowledge pervasively influences its value.
Firtns mu.st develop capabilities that enable flexibility
in arranging, selecting, ancl integrating knowledge
content,
.\e(.[Liisition. refinement, antl storage create and update
the knowledge platfoini, wiiereas retriexal. distribtition, and presentation deri\e \arious \-iews of that
knowledge.
49
Knowledge Management Roles
Knowletlge management programs often overetnphasize information technology at the expense of welltlefined knowledge management roles and responsibilities. Traditional organizational roles typically do
not address knowledge management or the crossfunctional. cr(.)ss-organizationai process that a firm
uses to create, share, and apply ktiowiedge, I pi'esent
an architecture that sLiggesis a set ot organizational
roles a firm should define explicitly. First, .some organizations assign a chief knowledge officer to comprehensi\'el\' handle knowledge ntanagement as a crossorganizational process. This person is responsible tor
the organization's knowledge management arehitecture, .Many organizations also cltister those responsible
tor know ledge management into knowledge or expertise centers, each being resj">onsible tor a particular
body of knowledge. Their responsibilities typically
include championing knowledge management, educating the organization, mapping knowledge, and
integrating the organizational and technological
resoLirces critical to the knowledge management
arciiiteciure. In adtliiion, fiinis must assign explicit
responsibility for each stage of the refineiy and their
interfaces, A.ssigning responsibility for the seamle.ss
movement of knowledge from acquisition through
use, as well as the interfaces between the,se stages,
helps to enstirc that knowledge repositories will be
tneaningfully created and ettecti\-ely used.
Role of Information Technologies
The information technology infrastructure provides a
.seamless "pipeline" for the flow of explicit knowledge through the t"\w stages ol the retining process
to etiahie:
• t^apturing knowledge,
• Defining, sttiring, categorizing, indexing, and linking digital objects that correspond to knowledge units.
• Searching for ("pulling") and subscribing to ("pushing") rele\'ant content.
• Presenting content with Nufticieni flexibility to ren-
Zack
Effective use of information technology
to communicate knowledge requires that
an organization share an interpretive
context.
50
dcr it liK-aningRil and aj;)plical>lc across mulUplc conttfxis (jl" ust'.
U.sing information tcchnologiL's — for cxaniplf. [hf
World Widf Web and groupwarc — a firm can Iniild
a niLillimcdia repository for ricli, explicit knowledge.
Organizations capture and sttjre units of knowledge
in forn^s that assign varioLis labels, categories, and
indexes to tlie inpLit. A flexible structure create.s
knowledge units, indexed, and linked by categories.
thar reflect the structure of the contextual knowledge
and the content of the organization's factual knowledge, displayed as flexible subsets \ ia dynamically
customizable views.
Effective use of inttjrmation technology to communicate knowledge ret[Liires that an organization share
an interpretive context. When communicators share
similar knowledge, liackground, and experience, they
can more effectively communicate knowledge via
electronically mediated channels.'" Fcjr example, by
means of a central electronic repositoiy. an organization can disseminate explicit, factual knowledge
within a stable community having a high degree of
shared contextual knowledge. However, when communicators share an interpretive context only to a
moderate degree, when they exchange knowledge
that is less explicit, oi' when a comnumity is kiosely
affiliated, more interactive modes — such as e-mail or
discussion databases — are appropriate. When ctintext
is not well shared and knowletlge is primarily tacit,
firms can best support comnumication and narrated
experience with the richest and most interactive
modes, such as videoconferencing or face-to-face
conversation.
Classifying Knowledge Management
Applications
On the basis of this concept of knowledge management architecture, a firm can .segment knowledge
processing into two broad classes: integraHre and
iuteractire. each addressing tlifferent knowletlge
Zack
management objectives. Together, these approaciies
provide a broad set of knowledge-processing capabiiities. They support well-structured repositories for
managing explicit knowledge, while enabling interaction to integrate tacit knowledge.
Integrative Applications
Jiiiegralire applicaluDis exhibit a sequential flow of
explicit kntjwiedge into and out of a repository.
Producers and consumers interact with the repositoiy
rather than with each other directly. The repository'
becomes the primary medium for knowledge
exchange, providing a place for members of a knowledge community to contribute their knowledge and
views. The primaiy focus tends lo be on the repository and the explicit knowledge it contains, rather ihan
on the contributors, users, or the tacit knowledge
they may hold.
Integrative applications vary in the extent to which
knowledge producers and consumers come from the
saine knowledge community. At one extreme, which
I label electronicpublisbing, the consumers (readers)
neither directly engage in the same work nor belong
to the same practice community as the producers
(authors). Once published, the content tends to be
.stable, and the few updates required usually originate
with the authors. The consumer accepts the content
as is. and active user feedback or modification is not
anticipated (although it ct)uld be allowed). For example, the organization may produce a newsletter, or its
human resources tiepaitment may publish its policies
or a tlirector)- of employee skills and experience.
At the other extreme, the producers and consumers
are members of the same practice community or
organizational unit. While still exhibiting a sequential
flow, the repositoiy provides a means to integrate
antl build on their collective knowledge, I label this
an i)Uegmtcd kitouiedge base. A best-practices database is the most common example t)f this type of
applicatioii. Practices are ctjllcctetl, integrated, and
shared amc^ng people confronting similar problems.
Regarding lhe organizational roles for managing integrative applications, acquisition requires knowledge
creators, finders, and collectors. Capturing orally conveyed knowledge requires interviewers and transcribers. Documenting observed experiences requires
organizational "reporters." Identifying and interpreting
deeply held cultural and social knowledge may
ie(]Liire (.orpoiaie anthropologists. Refining requires
Sloan Management Review
Summef 1999
analysts, interprelers. abstractors, classitieis. et
aiKl integrators. /•. librarian or "kinjwledge curator'
iiiList manage the repository. Others iniisi laki'
i'cs[ionsibili[y foi' atccss. tlistribiition, antl prL'si'iita
lion. 1-inaily, orgiinization.s may need peo[)le to tiain
Liseis to critically inierpret, e\akiate, and atla])t
knowletlge lo ne^- contexts.
Interactive Applications
hilcniilitv
iil)j>liL!ilii>iis
f o i l i.s p r i i n a i i h o n
sLipjxntiiig
intcraclion a m o i v ; those p e o p l e wilh laui k n o w l e d g e .
in '.•otiirast lo integrative applications, the repository
is a by-piotlLKt of interaction a n d collaboration rather
than the piimary f o t u s ol lhe applK;iti(in. Its
is tlynamic antl e m e r g e n t .
lmuiatti\e applic.itions \ ar\ atcortlint^ to ihe e\])eitisi,le\el of jii'otluceis and consumers and the degrcL' ol
sti'uclure imc)osetl on their iuli-iaciiou. Wliun lormal
training or know edge transter is the objecii\f. the
iniL'raction tentls :o be primarily between iiistruitoi A\\'-\
stLitient (or ex]ierl atui no\ice) Linti sirutturetl aioimd
a tiistrele [:>roble n. assignment, oi le.sson pi.in.' I
lefer to the.se applications as cii.^l)il)iiU'i( leciniiiiii,.
Highly interactive forums support ongoing, collahorative discussions among the
producers and consumers as one group.
ill loiilrasl. iuteratlion aniong those p<,-i ton
mon practices or lask.s tentls lo be inoie ati IKK t
emergent, I broa'.lly refei" lo these a|>plitation.s as
for/inis. Ihey may take the form ot a knn\'.letlge
kerage — an cle:troiiit tliscussion sjiacf where
ple may eithei' search tof knowledge (e.g.. "DOL
anyone know, . .") or atKertise their expertise.
Highly iiiterai.ti\i' loiLims sup|>or! ongoiiig.
ti\e tliscu.ssioiis Limoiig the [^lotkiteis and c
Lis one gi'oup. c<.ntinually respoiitiing tt) antl buiklini;
on CLich indi\ itlual's additions to lhe tlistussion, Thtflow continually loops back tioiii pifseulation to
acc|Liisition. W'itli the appix>priak' siiiuunini; antl
intlcxiiig of lhe contenl. a knowledge ie[">ository
emerges. A stantkiid categorization scheme indexes
contributions .so the tiiin lan u'appK ih.ii kno\^lftlge
acio.ss the
Intc'iac ti\ e applicalion> play ;i major lole in sL
intt'grati\f afifilit alions." h'oi' e \ a m | ) l e . a torum ina\
be liiikcti to an electi<)nic-]iLiblisliing a|ic>lication so
that ftliiors t a n tli.scuss lhe <.|uality ot the contributums Ol |)io\itk' a plate tor reatlci.s to w:\ui to antl
tlistuss the pLiblitahon. Besi-jiraclice tiatabases typitally rec|uiiv some tlegree of lorLiiii interaction, so that
ihose attempting to atlojit a jiractice have an opporuiniiN to tlistiiss its [eap|)litLition with its (I'eaiors.
Kfgaitling the txgani/atioiial roles lor managing iiiterj c t i \ e a|)plicalion.s. acc|uisitiou iet|Liiies letriiiters antl
tacililators to eticoLitage antl manage panicipation in
forLiins so thai those with app[o[Mi.iiL- exjiertise touliibulf. Till' I ommiiiiiLators otteii retine, stiLittme, aiKJ
index iht- lonleiil, using gLiitlflines antl talegoiies
built into lhe .ip[)li<-aiion antl suc)[)leiucntf(.t liy a
tonleu'iUL' niotleiatoi. AssLuing lhe (|U.ilii\ ol the
knowledge may leqiiiie quality-assLiraiKe per.sonilel,
s u i h as subiett-malter experis anti reputation brokers.
Usually a tonfereiue nioderaioi niaiuigcs a tonlerfiice
it'|>o,siio[y throiighoLit iis Mk' t ycle Iniiially. others may
ncetl lo wink wilh u^eis until they are comlortable
wiili gLiiniug a t t e s s lo and Lisiiig the ap|)lication.
Two Case Studies
I j>iesenl tv\o cases studies of m a n a g i n g explic it know 1etlge. (JiK* is :in f\ain[ile ol AU i[|lc*giali\ C Lire hitetlLire
lor llif elt-ctionic ]Uiblishing ol knowletlge gleauctl
b\ iiiciustiA resuarth a n a K s t s . ' ' T h e si,-(.ond illu.siiales
ihf f l t e c t i \ e use ot an inlcraclixL- aichitecture loi' distLission ioi'ums lo ,sup|iori scr\ icing c iistonifrs.-"
Integrative Architecture
IVchnology Kcsearch lnc\ CIKI)' is A leading inlt-rnalional |)io\idc-r of market iiiioimaiioii anci incUistry
.iiiaKsis lo liitoiinaiion icchnology \eiitlors a n d puri hasc-is I Kl fiii|)lo\s m o r e than M)0 analysts ;inti
annualK pubiishcs iiioie lliail IS.lHKl iivsiMich reports
thai a d d r e s s m o r e than htly disiiiKt sLibjett a r e a s
(called r e s e a u h |)rog;.iin.s). (^leu l-'ii>ii/e 4 tor TKI's
k n o w l e d g e nian.igeinenl arc hilet Uire.)
The' on-lint- k i i o w l e d g e repository c o m p r i s e s a standard sfl ot kiiov^lctlge unils consisting ot lhe e x e c u t i \ e sumiiijiic's. abstracts, main te.xt, gia])liics, tables,
antl charts trom 'rKl research ie|>orls. T h e c-omj)aiiy
uptlaies its leseaich ie|x>rts contiauoiisly, s o lhe
repo.siiois is, in iliis sense, dynamic. K n o w l e d g e Linits
aic iiitlfxctl .mtl luikett for flexible access, autt LISCIS
iiia\
Mi.|iii.nlially
navigjk-
l i o m
o ii c u i u l
l o llit-
iiexi
within a rc|iori, access siuiilai units acro.s.s leporis
(f.g., exfculi\t.' summaries only), or access [iLirticular
Linils diiecth. This sumciardi/ation enables 'IKt lo
Zach
Summet 1939
51
Figure 4
TRl Knowledge Management Architecture
• Reports
• Newsletters
• Bulletins
Repository of Research
Results
Acquire
Telephone calls and
surveys
Store
Refine
Distribute
Present
Analyze, interpret,
and report
T
52
Edit and format
Decompose into
knowledge units,
index and link units
PCs and desktop software
Index and link
knowledge units
Post on-line vta
Web-enabled Lotus
Notes'"'
Lotus Notes'"
Information systems
group
integrate analysts" explicated knowledge across
research programs for mcta-analysis, creating new
knowledge not possessed Iw any single analyst. As
technology changes, new re.search areas emerge that
cut across TRI's traditional research programs and
internal organip^ational boundaries. Building repositories based on a flexible yet standard structure enables
TRl to respcjnd by integrating those repositories into
composite platforms to support virtual research programs. From its repcsilories, TRl derives standard
monthly reports and more frequenl ad hoc bulletins
tor each research program frt^m several electronic
formats (Web. CD. fax. e-mail).
TRl s refiner}' encompasses two stages; analysis and
publishing. Analysis involves ctillecting, evaluating,
and interpreting market information, and reporting
the results. The analysts' tacit knowledge of their particular industry is applied to this information to prodtice an explicitly reported interpretation. The
process is similar to investigative reporting, in that
analysts try to get "the story behind the numbers."
In the publishing stage, editors convert analy.sts'
reports to a standard format and decompose them
into knowledge units, assigning standard document
identifiers and keywords and creating links among
knowledge units. While perhaps less efficient than
having all analysts initially write to a standard format.
TRI's approach preserves the analysts" autonomy and
creative, entrepreneurial spirit. TRl manages this
trade-off to foster a balance between the efficiency
Zack
Interactive selection
of knowledge units
Web browser or
Lotus Notes'" client
Customers
and speed of knowledge management and knowledge-worker morale, commitment, and performance
quality. TRl distributes on-line documents primarily
\'ia Web-enabled Lotus Notes.™
Implementing this new architecture has
been as much an organizational and
social intervention as a technical one.
TRI's experiences illustrate how digitizing content
alone is not adequate to exploit the opportunities for
flexibility and innovation in the design and delivery
of explicit knowledge. Digitized documents must be
structured as knowledge units within a modular and
flexible repository from which multiple knowledge
views can be rapidly and efficiently created as newuser needs arise in new contexts, ln addition, a
robust, seamless, and scalal)!e technology infrastructure is key to enabling the flexibility required for an
integrative knowledge management refineiy. It provides a multitude of user-defined views of rich, multimedia documents, embeds hyperlinks, and provides
an efficient yet flexible distribution channel.
Implementing this new architecture has been as
much an organizational and social intervention as a
technical one. TRl assigned and then trained people
to perform new roles to shejiherd the nujvement of
Sloan Managemenl Review
Summer }999
knowledge from taw to useable jiroduct; this humanresource investment was instrumental in the company's success. However, the exi.sting roles and responsibilities of'I'RI analysts, editors, antl IT pioicssionals
have changed. The mo\e to institute process and
content standard,'- reduced the le\ el of analyst autonomy antl discretion in rcgaixi to writing format antl
style, placing many decisions in the hands of editors
and production s:aff. Ultimately, success in electronic
pLiblishing was b.ised at least as much on effectively
managing (>rgani/,ational change as on inipleinenttiig
a sound product architecture and electronicpublishing tethnok^gy.
Interactive Archiiecture
Buckman l.aboraiories (BL), a $300 millit)n internatitjnal specialty chemicals company with more than
1.200 employees (called associates) operating in more
than HO ct)Linu-ies. is a recognized leader in knowletlge management.-The basis for competititin in BL's industiy has changed
from merely selliig products to solving customers'
chemical-treatmeit problems, lliis requires not only
knowledge of products and their underlying chemistiy. bLit Lilso knowletlge of how to apply them in
varit)us contexts. While many BL associates have college degrees in chemistr>' and related fields, selling
antl a|")p!ying BI. products requires practical field
experience in sohing cuslomcr [problems. This
knowletige is tacit, residing primarily wilh the field
asstK'intcs scatter Jt! worltiwide, I'ieltl-based knowledge is complex in that it has lo account for, often
subconsciously, many interacting variables and can
be specific tt) a ^.eographical region, a mill, or even a
particular machire. It is tiynamic, emergent, antl continually evoking. BL managemenl belic\cs that in this
type of competitive environment, strategic advantage
results primarily Vom applying the mc^st recent practical knowledge and experience of all associates to
each customer problem.
To acctjmplish tlis. Hob Muckman, chairman ot BL
Holdings (the BL parent company), en\isioned an online knowledge management capability' that BL im|")lemented as K'.Vetix," The Buckman Knowledge
Network. It was founded on several key principles:
• Direct exchanj:;c of knowledge among employees,
• LJniversal, unconstrained ability to contribute to
and gain acce,ss lo the firm's knowledge without
regard for time /one. physical location, language, or
Sloan Management Review
Summei 1999
level of computer proficiency.
• Preser\-ation of ctjnversations, interactions, ct)ntributit)ns, and exchanges.
• Fasy accessibility — that is, searchable by all BL
a,ss(x iates.
BL has placcti much of its explicit knowledge about
customers, products, and technologies intt) t)n-line
electronic repositories comprising a set of integrative
knowledge management applications. However, BL
has progres,setl well beyond integrative knowletlge
management. Its on-line interactive Tech Foaim supports the core of BL knowledge strategy (see Figure
5). Any associate can use Tech Forum to locate, capture, tlistribute, sliare, antl integrate llie practical,
applied knowledge and experience of all other BL
associates in support of the custtimer.-^ The forum
uses a stantlartl structure; comments arc "threaded" in
conversatit)nal sequence and indexed by topic, author,
and tlate. The content typically comprises questions,
responses, and field obseivations.
Weil defined and specifically assigned, knowledge
managemenl roles at BL are of two broad classes:
those that facilitate the tlirect and emergent exchange
of knowletlge through the lorLim (ihe interacti\'e
aspect of the architecture) and tht)se that support
refining and archiving the record of those exchanges
for future use (the integrative aspect). BL has successfully iniegrated the two in terms (}f organization
struclLire antl knowledge How.
Iil. organizes several knowledge management roles
under the Knowledge Transfer Department (KTD).
Subject experts assigned throughoul the company
take the lead in guiding discussions afioui their area
of expertise antl pro\1tle a measure of t|uality assurance regartling the advice given by otiiers. With the
support of KTO personnel, they periodically review
Tech Forum to identify useful threads for storage in
an f)n-line repository. The threatls are extracted, edited, summarized, and assigned keywords. Thus, valuable emergent content is collected and integrated so
that it is widely accessible, easily tli,stributed, and
profitabl)' reused. KTO personnel coniinually monitor
Tech Ft)rum, encourage participation, and provide
entl-user support antl training. The most technically
t|ualified person al each ojieraiing company worldwide is available to offer advice via Tech Forum.
Product developtneni managers use the ft)rum to
offer on-line technical advice to field perstjnnel and
to stay current with api")licLitions issues arising in the
Zack
53
Figure 5
Buckman Laboratories Knowledge Management Architecture
Repository of forum
communication
Acquire
Refine
Post comments
and replies
• By topic
• By author
• By thread
—•-
Store
Review, edit, and
recategonze
PCs and client software
All associates
Distribute
Present
Index by topic,
author, date, and
thread
T
54
1
1
-"»•
Moderated, threaded
discussions
— *
Post
on-iine
— •
Outsourced information service provider
Section leaders, systems operators, technical managers
liultl. Rf.scaivh lihrariims assigiifd to paiticLilar indiistriL'> scartli tor jiuhiiiK a\ailahk- iiiioniiation ahoLit
llK'ii' iiuiu.strie^. An iiiloniiatioii tcchiiolo^tiv gr()ii[)
inaiiiUiin.s IIK' tuchnical iiiha.strin.tLirc.
Discussions
threaded by topic
author, and date
Client software
All associates
knowledge antl the technology infiListiutture. |)ro\ides
a liLie couipetilive advantage.
Context of Knowledge Management
CAi,stoniL-is siaifti liial Bl.s abilits lo k'\x-!a,L;c iis rolIftlixc' kiiowlctiL^c \ ia ']\-c\\ Forum wa^ instriniKMital
in making a sale to tht-ni, liu\\L'\cr, tlic ice'linolo,siy i.s
not jiruiirietary or luading e(.igu; tin- [irocL^ss is nol
L'omplux, The ITLIC .source ol BL's atKantage is not in
tliL' ici,hnology or ihe j^nocess, wiiich aiv ULtsily iinitatetl, iiLit in the cLilture LUKI stiiictLire ot tlie oigani/ation. The organi/ation's willingness to eieate, share,
an(.i ix'apply know Irtlge |>io\idL's the context tor SLICccsstully execLiting BL's knowledge strak'gy ami
aixhitectiiie.
Another reason for ihe tbiiim's success is UKII il has
hecome p a n of the ongoing habits and praciites of
tliL' organization,-' Eveiyone expects his or her
coworkets to reati the toriim legLilai'ly; to p()si prohlems, ie|)lies. and ohseiAaiioiis there: aixi to m n tribiile whenever [)o,ssible. Cxinsisteni. n)lleeli\X' coin[iliance creates antl continLially leint'oixes peixeption
ol ihe toiLim as a reliable LUKI efhtieiit means for
sluiring knowletlge and st>King problems. Ils use.
su[)[>orteti by uttive managemenl of the architecture,
has l)i.'co[iie sell-sustaining BL managemenl Liiitlerstantls iliai ihe t o n t l u e n t e ot i^ulture. lolfs. norms,
habits, antl ])ractices leading to this success is tlifficLili
lo imitate antl, therefcjre, togt'tlier w iih associates'
Zacli
I ha\'e described explicit knowletige, proposetl an
aichitcLtural framewoi'k lor iis management, antl piesentetl iwo examjiles of its application, 'I'liis I'lamework is a toherent apprt)ach t(j begin designing a
tapabilit\ lor managing explicil knowletlge. .Next, I
tlistuss se\er;i! key issLies aboul the bioatier organixalional t^ntext for knowledge management, the
tiesign Lind managemenl of knowietlge-processitig
ac)[")li<.alions. antl the benehts ihat must accrue to be
suttesskil.
Knowletlge LU'chiletinres exist within foLir piimar\
tontexls iliat intUieiue \u)\\ knowletige management
attetts an organization's [leiformante.
ic Cdi/lr.x! atldresses an organi/aiion's intent
LintI abilily to L-X[iloii its knowletlge anil learning
cii[);ibilities better Uuin the competiti(.)n.'~ It inckitles
ilie exient to which the members of an organization
helie\e that supeiior knowledge is a conijietitixe
atUaiitage LUKI how they exfilitiiiy link strategy,
knowletlge. and peift)rmance. 'Ihe successfLiI firms I
lia\e siutlieti aif alile to ai1icLi!ate the link i)etv\een
the slialeg\ •.>{ iheii' organi/atiuii antt what membeis
at all levels of that organization neeti to know, sluue,
antl learn to exetiite that sti ateg\. Lhis articulation
Sloan Management Review
Summer 1999
cs liow thc-y deploy organizational anti leclinological resources antl capabilities ior explicaiinj^ and
leveraging knowl-jdge, which increases ihc probaliility tjf their adtling \ alue.
atldresses the c<)[n|icuii\encss oi
an organization s knowledge. Hxisting knowledge can
be compared to what an organizatitin must kntnv to
execute ils strategy. Wliere there are current <.)r future
gaps, knowledge management efforts shtjuld lie
directed tcmarti (.losing tliem, assuring a strategic
focus. An organization alscj must assess the cjuality and
.strategic value of its knowledge relative to the competition. To the extent that the bulk of a firm's knowledge is common antl basic, tliat knowledge will provide less com[:>elitive atlvantage dian if ihe firiii's
knowledge is Liniquc anti innovaliw, F-xplitating antl
leveraging thai inno\ati\e knowletlge tan pro\itle ihe
greatest competit \ c benefit.
l ontcxi rellects the organization roles
anti striiciurc — brnial and informal — as well as
the .sociocultural factors affecting knt)wietige management such as culiure, power relations, norms, rewartl
.systems, antl management philosophy. Beyond lhe
knowledge manaticment roles prtjposeci earlier, effective knowledge creation, sharing, antl leveraging
requires an orgar izationai climate and rewarti system
that values and encourages cooperation, iriist. learning, anci inno\aiii m antl provities incentives for
engaging in diose knowledge-based roles, activities,
antl proce.sses.-'' I have consistently obsen'etl this
aspect to be a major ob.stacle to effective knowletlge
management.
ci>nlv\l atklresses the existing inf(.)i'niation
lechnology infrasuucture and capabilities supporting
the knowledge nianagement architecture. One adage
states that kntjwlfdge management is 10 percent
technology and SO percent petiple. However, without
tlie ability to seamlessly collect, index, store, Lintl tlistribute explicit knowledge electronically whenever
and wherever ne^-ded, an organizatitjn will not fully
exploit its capahiliues and incentives. As the BL anti
TRI examples ilKstrate, the technology need n()t be
complex or leading edge to provide significant benefit. Its absence, however, would seriously impinge on
the efforts of these companies to effectively manage
their knowledge assets.
New Organizational Roles
The SLiccessful fiinis that I obsenet! have explicitly
Sloan Managemenl Review
Summet 1999
tiefined and rewardeti roles that facilitate knowledge
capture, refinement, retrieval, interpretation, and use.
Perhaps the most important role is that of subjectmatter expert, functicjning as an editor to a.ssure tonality of coiitfHl anti as a repositoiy manager, w ho
assures the t|uality of conttwi by thoughtful abstracting antl indexing. In convening to on-line knowledge
management. TRI found the need for a much greater
investment in editors to perfbrm the.se rt;)les. BL
showetl its ctJinmitment by assigning some of its most
knowletigeahle people to these roles.
Managing Knowledge-Processing Applications
Knowletlge management applications form a continuum frt)m low to high interaction complexity. Forums
are the most interactive and complex application
because they tend to span the entire tacit, explicit
knowledge-processing cycle. Establishing a welldefined social community and shared context to support the use of the technt)lt)gy plays a key role in an
application's success. Electronic pLiblishing. in contrast, is perhaj:)s the mt>st straightforwartL It is oneway distribution of explicit knowledge to a user community that may be loosely affiliated and related cjnly
by its need for access to the .same knowledge reposiloiy, but not neces.sarily supported by a social community. The greater the interaction complexity, the
more that challenges become social, ct)gnitive, and
behavioral in nature rather than technical and, thus,
retjLiire well-managed organizational change (•)rograms.
Knovvletlge rejiositoiies have a life cycle that firms
must manage. Once created, repositories tend to grow,
reaching a point at which they begin to collapse
under their tnvn weight, requiring major reorganizatifin.-'' Their rejuvenatit^n requires deleting obs(.)lete
content, archiving less active but potentially tiseful
content, and reorganizing what remains. Content cjr
topic areas may become fragmented or redundant.
Reorganizing retjuires eliminating those redundancies,
combining similar contributions, generalizing content
for easier reapplication, anti restructuring categories
as needed. SLiccessful knowledge management organizaiions [:)roactively manage and leorganize their
repositories as an ongoing activit)' rather than waiting
for decline to set in before acting.
Complex kntjwledge management problems typically
require multiple repositt)ries segmented by degree of
interactivity, volatility of cf)ntent, or the structure of
the knowledge itself. Each repository may have a different set of (irocesses antl roles b\' which its content
Zack
55
is created, refined, and stored. Ltjng-li\'ed. archival
knowledge may iiave a more formal review anti
approval prticess, w hei'cas Iiesi practices may undergo expcditeti etiiting. anti tiiscussion databases for
rapiti exchange may have no review process other
than after-tlie-fact monittiring by a forum moderaior.
Furthermore, the use of knowledge repositories typically causes knowledge creation and knowlettge
application to become separated in titne and space.
Therefore, firms must continually evaluate the knowietlge to ensure that it applies to c u n e n t context and
56
.
circumstances. Eirms may need to segment their
repositories and their underlying management
processes on the basis of the volcilility of their context as w-ell as content. Eor example, the storage
structures and processes for managing product knowledge in rapitily changing markets may differ significantly from managing that knowledge in stable markets. Segmenting these repositories and identifying
any significant differences in their refinerv' processes
are crucial for successful application, as is their integration to [;)rovitle seamless access to their knov\letlge.
For knowledge repositories to be meaningful, their
structure must reflect the structure of shared mental
models or contextual knowledge tacitly held by the
t)rganization. hi most organizatit)ns, those structures
are neither well defined nor widely shared. Yet their
explication is essential ft)r effectively managing
ex[ilicitiy encotletl organizational knovvietige. This
requires that a firm define what a knov\iedge unit
means anti how to meaningfully index antl categorize
a collecti(3n of knowletlge units fV^r ease of access.
retrieval, exchange, and integration. Creating "semantic con.sensus" even within common practice communities is often a difficult task, let alone across an
entire organization. TRI fotinti developing stantlards
to be a particularly tlifficult challenge, yet o n e that
had to be addressed for the publishing process to
function. Eor example, w h e n TRI first migrated to cjnline pLiblishing, it had no standard spellings for vendor names, technology keywords, or even research
programs — al! essential for effective re|X")sitor\" management. TRI even struggled to create a stantlard and
consistent tiefinition of a knowletlge unit. BL hati
more flexibility within its forums, yet alst) found that
develofiing a meaningful Intlexing scheme for its file
libran' was ciitical for its use. These experiences are
nt)t unusual. Different lexicons naturally emerge from
different parts of an organization. In many ways.
standards are not compatible with the culture of many
organizations. However, the ability to integrate and
Zack
Integration of knowledge across
different contexts opens an organization
to new insights.
share knowledge depends on some broatlly meaningful scheme for its structure.
Integration of knowletlge across different contexts
opens an organization to new insights, A practice
community's exposure to how its knowledge ean be
applied in other contexts increa.ses the scope and
value of that knowledge. Often the variety of experiences within a local community of practice is not
expansive enough tt) fully understand some phenomena. By being able to combine experiences aertjss
communities, the scope of experience is broadened,
as is the ability to learn from those experiences. For
example. 1 worked with a leading imaging firm that
created a stantlarti v\ay to capture and share sales
techniques among ils market segments. By sharing
knowledge of ht)w custt)mers in different market segments used a particular product, salespeople in each
terriujiy were exposed to patterns, itisiglits, and selling opportunities they might not have percei\'ed on
their own.
Benefits Depend on Application
The nature of the benefits gained from managing
explicit knowledge depends on the type of application. Electronic publishing and other icjw interactivity,
high-structure applications tend to provide a significant cost saving ox increased efficiency. Publishing
electronically is much less expensi\'e tiian distributing
t)n paper. In the case of distributetl learning, electronically distributing prepackaged knowledge (e.g.,
electronic texttiooks and ct)urse notes) can save significant travel expenses, in contrast, the more interacti\'e Oi emergent-content applications tend to provide
sup|X)rt for solving problems, innovating, and leveraging opportunities. The greatest impact, however,
comes from combining the two.
For example, BL is adding a distance-learning capability to its other api")licaucjns. roLinding oui its portfolio. The company is poised to reap the greatest benefit by integrating the capabilities of ail \is applicatitins. BL will be able to archive its emergent knowledge (developed through the Tecli Eoaim). make it
available for searching by associates in the field, and
Sloan Management Review
Summer 1399
also ctlit anti rupackagc- tlic- knowledge as training
inaicriaLs hy means of the distance-learning application. Thus, iiainii'g will ha\e more of a "real wtjrld"
feel and focLi.s. SiLidents will lie able to re\iew aetLi;il
[irobleni.s and. afler tleliherating independently, find
real-liTe sokitions. I'ormal trainlnj^ will take place in
lhe field. gi\iiig Mtiidenis the abilily to directly appK'
or integrate the iiaining materials with their own dayto-clay problems. In this way, tho.se materials become
more relevant ami interwoven into the student'.s tacit
experience and the learning more meaningful and
lasting. Ry integn ting the interaciive, emergent forums
\\ ith tht' structurtd content and distribution of formal
training, a firm encourages a continual cycle of
knowledge creati>n and ap|ilication. Tacit kncjwledge
is made explicit \ ia forums, formally transferred \'ia
tlistance learning, and tacitly reapplied in context.
New tacit kn<iwltclge becomes ;i\ailal.")le for sharing
with others via the same cycle. Hach turn of the cycle
increases the kncwiedge of the organization.-' pro\ iding potentially gri-ater competitive advantage.
•
In summaiy, org^inizations that are managing knowledge efk'Cti\ely:
• linclersland iht-ir .strategic knowledge requirements.
• L)e\ise a knowledge strategy appropriate to the
References
• 1. For example, see'
J.S. Brown and P Dugjid, "Organizational Learning
and Communities-of-Pracice' Toward a Unified View
of Working, Learning and Innovation." Organization
Science, volume 2, Februiiry 1991, pp. 40-57;
I Davenport, S. Jarvenpaa. and M. Beers,
"Improving Knowledge Work Processes," Sloan
Management Review, voljme 37, Summer 1996, pp.
53-66:
PF, Drucker, "The New Pniductivity Challenge,"
Harvard Business Review volume 69, NovemberOecemberl991,pp. 69-7li:
B. Kogut and U. Zander, 'knowledge ol ttie Firm,
Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of
Technology, Organization Science, volume 3, August
1992, pp. 383-397,
I Nonaka, "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, volume
5, February 1994, pp. 14-:!7;
J.B. Quinn, P Anderson, End S. Finkelstein,
"Managing Professional htellect: Making the Most
of the Best," Harvard Business Review, volume 74,
Marchl996, pp. 71-82; a i d
S.G. Winter, "Knowledge and Competence as
Strategic Assets," in D.J Teece, ed.. The
Competitive Challenge: S'rategies for Industrial
Innovation and Renewal (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Ballinger, 1987), pp 159- 84.
• 2 RJ Heibeler, "Benc marking Knowledge
Management," Strategy ti Leadership, volume 24.
SiDan Management Review
•^iimfflfir 1999
firm's business strategy.
• Imjilement an organizational and technical architecture a|ipropriale to the organizalion's knowledgeprocessing needs.
These factors enable the organization to apply ma.\inuiin eftort antl conitnitnient to creating, explicating,
sharing, applying, and ini[iro\ing its knowledge.
Some \iew knowletlge nuinageinent as merely the
CLinenl business fad. "^'el knowledge is (he essence of
luimans as individuals and collectivities. Respecting
and institutionalizing the role of knowledge and
learning may be the most effecti\'e approach to building a solid and entku'ing competitive tbuntiation for
business organizations. Firms can derive significant
benefits from consciously, proactively. anti aggiessi\'ely managing their explicit and explitable knowledge. Dcjing this in a coherent manner requires aligning a firm's organizational and technical resources
and capabilities with its knowledge strategy. This
rec|uires mapping the firm's organizational and technical capabilities and constraints to its knowledgeprocessing requirements. It may require significant
organizational and technical interventions. The knowledge management architecture pro\-ides a framevvork
for miitlino this eftcjrt.
March-Aprill996, pp. 22-29: and
L.W. Payne, "Unlocking an Organization's Ultimate
Potential Through Knowledge Management."
Knowledge Management in Practice (American
Productivity & Quality Center), volume 1, April-May
19961
• 3 M.H, Meyer and M H Zack, "The Design of
Information Products," Sloan Management Review,
volume 37, Spring 1996, pp. 43-59;
M.H. Zack, "Electronic Publishing: A Product
Architecture Perspective," Information &
Management, volume 31,1996, pp 75-86: and
M.H. Zack and M.H. Meyer, "Product Architecture
and Strategic Positioning in Information Products
Firms," in M,K, Ahuja, D,F Galletta, and H.J,
Watson, eds,. Proceedings of the First Americas
Conference on Infomation Systems (Pittsburgh.
Association for Information Systems, August 1995),
pp. 199-201.
• 4. D.G. Bobrow and A. Collins, eds..
Representation and Understanding: Studies in
Cognitive Science (New York, Academic Press, 1975);
J.S. Bruner. Beyond the Information Given, J.M.
Anglin, ed. (New York: Norton, 1973);
C.W. Churchman, The Design of Inguiring Systems:
Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization (New
York: Basic Books, 1971);
FI Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1981);
F Matchlup, Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution
and Economic Significance. Volume 1: Knowledge
and Knowledge Production (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1980); and
D.M. MacKay. Information. Mechanism and Meaning
(Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press, 1959).
• 5. F Blackler, "Knowledge, Knowledge Work and
Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation,"
Organization Studies, volume 16, number 6.1995, pp.
1021-1046;
Kogut and Zander (1992);
Dretske (1981); and
J. Lave, Cognition in Frscftce(Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1988),
• 6 Brown and Duguid (1991):
J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning. Legitimate
Peripheral Participation (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1991):
Nonaka (1994);
M. Polyani, The Tacit Dimension [Qarden City, New
York. Doubleday, 1966): and
P. Romer, "Beyond the Knowledge Worker," World
Link, January-February 1995, pp, 56-60.
• 7. J.R Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and Its
Implications {Uevj York: Freeman, 1985): and
R.C, Schanlc. "The Structure of Episodes in Memory,"
in D G. Bobrow and A. Collins, eds.. Representation
and Understanding Studies In Cognitive Science
(New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 237-272,
• 8. H Demsetz, "The Theory of the Firm Revisited,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, volume
4, Spring 1988, pp. 141-161, and
R.M. Grant, "Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of
the Firm," Strategic Management Journal, volume
17, Winter 1996, pp 109-122.
Zack
57
• 9. See, for example, Zack (1996).
• 10 This line of reasoning is addressed in'
Demsetz (19881:
R.M. Grant, "Prospering in Dynamically Competitive
Environments: Organizational Capability as
Knowledge Integration," Organization Science, voiume 7, number 4, July 1996, pp. 375-387:
Kogut and Zander (19921, and
E.T. Penrose, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm
(NewYork. Wiley, 1959)
58
• l i e . Argyris and D.A. Schon, Organizational
Learning- A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading,
Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley, 1978},
T.H Davenport, R.G. Eccles, and L. Prusak,
"Information Politics," Sloan Management Review,
volume 34, Fall 1992, pp. 53-65:
E.H Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership
(San Francisco Jossey-Bass, 1992),
C.J.G. Gersick, "Habitual Routines m TaKk-Performing
Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, volume 47, October 1990, pp
65-97: and
P. Nelson and S. Winter, An Fvolutionary Theory of
Economic Change (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Belknap, 1982)
• 12. R.E. Bohn, An Informal Note on Knowledge
and How to Manage /r(Boston: Harvard Business
School, 1986): and
J. Scfiember, "Mrs. Fields' Secret Weapon," Personnel
Jourrjal, mlumelQ. September 1991, pp. 56-58.
• 13. For an extended discussion of information
product architectures, see
Mever and Zack (19961: and, for an extended discus-
Zack
sion of the refinery aspect, see:
M H. Zack, "An Information Infrastructure Model for
Systems Planning," Journal of Systems
Management, volume 43, August 1992, pp. 16-19
and 38-40.
• 14. MacKay(1969l.
• 15. Meyer and Zack (1996).
• 16. M H. Zack, "Electronic Messaging ancf
Communication Effectiveness m an Ongoing Work
Group," Information S Management, volume 26,
April 1994, pp 23V241.
• 17. Although distributed learning applications are
typically supplemented with electronically published
course materials and assignments Ian integrative
application), distributed learning refers primarily to
the student/instructor interaction (an interactive
application).
• 18 While these approaches are conceptually distinct, they cnutd be implemented within the same
software platform, and, in fact, common technology
will enable smoother integration
• 19.1 obtained this information during twelve
hours of interviews with the senior vice president
responsible for information and consulting services,
the director of information systems strategy responsible for the electronic-publishing project, the lead
application architect, and a senior analyst/consultant
to the project I also reviewed archival documentation that included design documents, a discussion
database used to support the project team, and
related e-mail messages.
• 20 I obtained this information during approximately 100 hours of interviews and focus-group ses-
sions with senior executives and managers of various departments at Buckman Labs
• 21 This company name is a pseudonym
• 22 Buckman Labs has won several awards for its
knowledge management infrastructure, including the
1996 Arthur Andersen Enterprise Award for Sharing
Knowledge and, in 1997, the ComputerWorld/
Smithsonian Award - Manufacturing Section.
• 23 Buckman Labs produces a version of the Tech
Forum for Latin America called Foro Latinumher and
IS translating its forums. Web pages, and other
knowledge repositories into several languages.
• 24. Zack (1994).
• 25 M.H. Zack, "Developing a Knowledge
Strategy," California Management Review, volume
41, Spring 1999, pp 127-145.
• 26. Nonaka (1994), and
M H Zack and J.L McKenney, "Social Context and
Interaction In Ongoing Computer-Supported
Management Groups," Organization Science, volume
6,July-August1995, pp. 394-422.
• Z7. C.C. Marshall, F.M. Shipman III, R.J. McCall,
"Making Large-Scale Information Resources Serve
Communities of Practice," Journal of Management
Information Systems. \iQ\ume 11, Spring 1995, pp.
65-86.
• 28. Nonaka (1994)
Reprint 4034
Copyright © 1999 by the Sloan Management
Review Association.
All rights reserved.
Sloan Uanagemeni Review
Summer 1999