Introduction

A critical review of
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s a new range
knowledge of business improvement philosophies, ap-
management models proaches and methodologies have been
continuously developed. This development
Rodney McAdam and has been largely based on various combina-
tions of business practice and academic
Sandra McCreedy theory. Examples of these approaches are
myriad and include organisational learning,
the learning organisation, total quality man-
agement, business process re-engineering, to
name but a few.
Of more recent times, especially in the past
two to three years, knowledge management
(KM) has started to emerge as an area of
The authors interest in academia and organisational prac-
Rodney McAdam is Senior Lecturer and
tice. The literature reveals a rapidly increasing
Sandra McCreedy is a Research Assistant, both at
body of knowledge relating to KM which
the Ulster Businesss School, University of Ulster, Belfast,
covers many different disciplines and areas of
Northern Ireland.
interest to academics and practitioners.
For example, a search of over 100 Web sites
on knowledge management (Quintas et al.,
Keywords
1997) revealed the following heterogeneous
Knowledge management, Models, range of interests, perspectives and issues:
Organizational development economics, intellectual capital, engineering
approaches (flexible manufacturing systems),
Abstract aspects of computing and knowledge media,
There is an increasing interest in the area of knowledge organisation studies (informed by anthropol-
management (KM) within organisations and academia. ogy, sociology etc.), epistemology (including
Because of the emergent nature of the field there is a lack learning, situated cognition and cognitive
of classification of suitable knowledge management psychology), other aspects of classification
models to use in conducting further research, literature and definition informed by artificial intelli-
evaluation and organisational applications. This paper gence, human resource issues etc.
discusses the definitions and classifications of knowledge Many important questions and issues arise
management, representing a wide spectrum of views in regard to KM. For example, is it an
from mechanistic to more socially orientated. An emerging paradigm through which many
evaluative framework is established from which three existing strands of theory and practice can at
knowledge management models can be critically dis- last be beneficially integrated, or is KM a
cussed. Three KM model classifications are critiqued, temporary aberration promising yet more
namely knowledge category models, intellectual capital false dawns in regard to organisation devel-
models and socially constructed models. Finally a opment and management learning?
modified KM model is tentatively suggested to act as a Also, what is the underlying epistemology
useful guide for further research and organisational of knowledge management? As questioned by
application. This model takes a holistic approach to Richardson et al. (1987) ± is knowledge based
scientific and socially constructed knowledge, assuming on scientific data or socially constructed or a
the need for both emancipatory and business benefits mixture of both? The answer to this question
from KM. The model represents KM as a highly recursive has far reaching implications in choosing
process, rather than sequential. approaches to embody and disseminate
knowledge within organisations as existing
knowledge transfer approaches may not be
sufficient to cover the diversity of knowledge
classifications.
As well as issues relating to the emergence,
The Learning Organization
Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . pp. 91±100 definition and classification of KM there are
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0969-6474 unresolved conflicts in regard to the
91
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

emancipatory elements of KM (Nonaka and Burgoyne and Reynolds (1997) summarise

Takeuchi, 1995). Will the application of KM Kemmis's (1985) account of the character-
principles within organisations lead to the istics of a critically reflective perspective as:
concurrent enhancement of business perfor- . concerned with questioning assumptions;
mance and employee emancipation or will it . its focus is social rather than individual;
ultimately lead to employees giving more of . it is concerned with emancipation.
their minds and bodies to further establish the
To achieve the aim of the paper and apply a
existing status quo?
critical perspective, the following objectives
It is contended that given the continual
have been defined:
change and emergent nature of the field over . to clarify the definitions and classifica-
the past two to three years, it is now an
tions of KM;
appropriate time to try to have a more in-
. to establish a framework for critically
depth enquiry into the KM discourse to
evaluating existing KM models;
attempt to clarify how KM can be more
. to critically evaluate KM models which
beneficially researched and applied to orga-
represent a wide spectrum of views within
nisations and those who work in them.
the field;
In initially attempting to address these
. to suggest a suitable framework for
questions and issues, this paper critically
examines some of the existing models of KM carrying out a further in-depth critique of
which reflect the different viewpoints within the field of KM, leading to improved
the overall field. All of the KM models theory and practice within the field.
examined are built upon key philosophical
assumptions and the critical discussion seeks Schools of thought within knowledge
to examine these assumptions and views. management
Following a short description of the aims, While definitions of any subject matter can be
perspectives and objectives of the paper there helpful in regard to clarifying the scope and
is a short discussion on the definition, depth of the subject under consideration, they
classification and emergent nature of KM. can also be notoriously difficult to articulate.
This discussion is followed by the establish- Definitions can often result in unwarranted
ment of a critical framework through which to simplistic reductionist arguments. When the
evaluate some of the key existing KM models, subject which is being considered is in the
following which, the models are critically management domain the difficulty is com-
discussed. Finally some conclusions are made pounded even further due to the subjective
in regard to suggesting a suitable model and eclectic nature of the field. When the
through which to further investigate the field subject is not only in the management field
of KM. but is also emerging rather than established,
then the difficulty with definitions is even
further magnified. Such is the case with the
Aims, perspectives and objectives emerging subject area of KM, as pointed out
by Quintas et al. (1997) who argued that ``it is
The aim of this paper is to investigate the difficult to scope and define this disparate and
current understanding of the theory and emergent field and understand the processes
practice of the emerging field of KM by involved to determine programmes/interven-
critically evaluating existing knowledge man- tions''.
agement models, so that research and The following definitions, which are but a
improved approaches in this area can be representative sample, are listed below and
developed and applied to organisations and then discussed:
those who work in them. Knowledge management is ... knowledge crea-
Throughout the paper a critical perspective tion, which is followed by knowledge
will be taken so that the underlying assump- interpretation, knowledge dissemination and
tions of KM can be revealed and questioned. use, and knowledge retention and refinement
(De Jarnett, 1996).
Although, as pointed out by Burgoyne and
Powerful environmental forces are reshaping the
Reynolds (1997), there are a number of
world of the manager of the 21st century. These
approaches relating to ``working out of a forces call for a fundamental shift in organisation
critical perspective'', the ``critical reflection'' process and human resource strategy. This is
approach is adopted throughout the paper. knowledge management (Taylor et al., 1996).
92
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

Knowledge management is the process of stated: ``we are entering the knowledge society
critically managing knowledge to meet existing in which the basic economic resource is no
needs, to identify and exploit existing and
longer capita ... but is and will be knowledge''.
acquired knowledge assets and to develop new
opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997). This viewpoint effectively labels knowledge as
The crux of the issue is not information, a resource like land or oil which has in-
information technology ... the answer turns out dependent existence outside human and
to lie more with psychology and marketing of social systems. Ultimately Drucker is con-
knowledge within the family than with bits and sidering knowledge as being capitalised ±
bytes (Peters, 1992). hence the term intellectual capital. This type
Knowledge management is the activity which is of capital is seen as consisting of intangible
concerned with strategy and tactics to manage
assets not frequently recorded on the balance
human centred assets (Brooking, 1997).
sheet and can include employee skills, in-
Firstly, a cursory reading of the definitions formation, patents, copyright, brands, R&D,
reveals that KM is seen as relating to both licensing opportunities, innovative use of
theory and practice ± for example the defini- assets such as databases etc. Brooking (1997)
tions of De Jarnett (1996) and Quintas et al. suggests that KM is actively concerned with
(1997) respectively. Much of the existing the strategy and tactics to manage IC or
literature on knowledge is highly theoretical human-centred assets. KM from this stand-
and conceptual, especially in the field of point is seen as leveraging IC (Peters, 1992),
cognitive psychology; however, broadly or as recognising or rediscovering assets that
speaking, most of the reflective literature on the organisation is not using to full potential,
KM combines both theory and practice in a ultimately employees. This approach is simi-
fairly seamless and often recursive manner. lar to that of Handy (1990) who spoke of
Secondly, the definitions are not predicated creating value from intangible assets. Thus
on information technology. For example, these approaches imply that the key areas
Peters' definition positively asserts that KM is within KM are IC and the management of IC.
not situated in the technology domain. This However the concept of knowledge as
omission raises an important issue. Recent simply relating to IC or a manageable asset is
advances in technology have led to faster data a highly mechanistic view and is much
transfer, but it remains a useful enabler rather criticised by those who see knowledge as
than a central tenet at the heart of KM. socially constructed (Gergen, 1991; Alvesson
Thirdly, people and learning issues are and Willmott, 1996). This more social-
central to KM (see the definitions of Quintas orientated view focuses on knowledge
et al.). The vast majority of the existing construction as being a key area of KM.
literature on KM covers these two related
issues, usually in an organisational context KM as an emerging paradigm
and covering both theory and practice. Is KM a passing fad, a significant trend or a
The wide range of definitions also reflect paradigm in its own right? Answers to these
the fact that those people working in the field questions will influence the investment of
of KM come from a wide range of disciplines, organisations in KM and its ultimate cred-
such as psychology, management science, ibility in the academic literature. Ultimately
sociology, strategy, production engineering there will be a reluctance to invest time and
etc. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus KM resources in ephemeral movements.
not only combines theory and practice but is It is important to clarify what is implied by
also multidisciplinary. Scarborough (1996) terms applied to emerging bodies of knowl-
comments: ``the sprawling and eclectic lit- edge such as KM. Firstly, when a subject is
erature and the ambiguity and definitional written about and discussed the summation of
problems ... allow different groups to project all that is known about it is referred to as a
their own interests and concerns onto it''. body of knowledge. When this body of
In the literature there is a lot of confusion knowledge becomes sufficiently significant
between the terms knowledge management and influential on theory or practice it is then
(KM) and intellectual capital (IC); for ex- classified into what McLaughlin and Thorpe
ample, EFQM (1997) and others use the (1993) called, either a toolbox of techniques,
terms interchangeably. However, it is con- or a philosophy. A toolbox of techniques is
tended that KM and IC are different but largely problem-solving methodologies in a
related issues. It was Drucker (1995) who subject area. A philosophy implies a set of
93
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

beliefs which provide those who subscribe to Table I Old and new management paradigms
them with a distinct world view. New paradigm Old paradigm
Secondly, the idea of views gives rise to the
term paradigm. Kuhn (1970, 1974) and Organisational learning Organisation discipline
Clegg et al. (1996) defined paradigms as Virtuous circles Vicious circles
theories of world views that define legitimate Flexible organisations Inflexible organisations
problems, methods and solutions for a com- Management leaders Management administrators
munity. Typical components of a paradigm Open communication Distorted communication
are laws and theoretical assumptions, princi- Core competencies drive product Strategic business units drive
ples and methodological prescriptions. A development product development
typical cycle in organisation study is where a
Strategic learning capacities are Strategic learning occurs at the
paradigm and its associated laws and as-
widespread apex of the organisation
sumptions develops from a body of
Assumption that most organisation Assumption that most
knowledge and acts as a guide to practice.
members are trustworthy organisation members are
Then ambiguities and novelties become ap-
untrustworthy
parent but are overlooked for as long as
Most organisation members are Most organisation members are
possible. Some dissipate (fads), but others
empowered disempowered
become too important and influential to be
denied and the paradigm is overthrown by a Tacit and local knowledge of all Tacit and local knowledge of
members of the organisation is the most members of the
competing paradigm, which promises to solve
most important factor in success, organisation must be disciplined
the novelties or ambiguities. It is interesting to
and creativity creates its own by managerial prerogative
note that Kuhn concluded that there are no
prerogative
set standards for proving the superiority of
one paradigm over another, rather the switch Source: Clegg et al. (1996)
from one paradigm to another is akin to an act
of conversion. It is interesting to compare Table I with the
How is KM classified in regard to para- current approaches to KM. Firstly there is a
digms? Firstly, KM is more than a toolbox of ``knowledge is truth'' view (Morgan, 1986)
techniques. Had it remained solely in the which represents approaches to KM which
information technology domain then it could take a absolutist approach to knowledge
have been classified as another set of IT construction, associating it with the assimila-
solutions to existing problems and hence a tion of factual inputs. These ``facts'' are
fad. Ramsay (1996) equates faddishness to labeled as scientific and therefore cannot be
superficial quick fixes which implies a much disputed. Gergen (1991) describes such
narrower viewpoint than that which currently indisputability as ``scientists adding sanctity
exists for KM. But is KM a business or to ideology''. Richardson et al. (1987) de-
organisational paradigm in its own right? The scribe these views of knowledge as enforcing
work of Clegg et al. (1996) implies that ``the removal of discriminatory power'' and
paradigms can be large, all embracing, para- queries how ideas can be evaluated and
digms, or paradigms that relate to a particular critiqued with this approach. Overall, this
part of a large paradigm. For example the positivist approach to knowledge and KM
large paradigm of postmodernism can include equates more to the right-hand side of
the paradigms of feminism and ecological Table I.
views. Thus the possibility arises that KM Secondly, within the field of KM, there is a
could emerge into a large paradigm or be a view that knowledge is socially constructed.
paradigm which is a subset of a larger Burgoyne et al. (1994) state that ``philosophy
emerging paradigm. Clegg et al. (1996) define of science has largely been replaced on the
the current emerging large paradigm of intellectual agenda by the history and sociol-
organisation theory and practice in terms of ogy of knowledge which emphasises cultural
Table I. and historical processes rather than rationally
This representation puts Kuhn's work on superior knowledge''. This approach agrees
succeeding paradigms in a current organisa- with Habermass's view that knowledge con-
tional context in that it shows the paradigm stitutes human interest rather than being
on the left-hand side of the table replacing the restricted to a functionalist science approach.
paradigm on the right-hand side. Lave and Wenger (1991) conclude that
94
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

knowledge achieved in this way is cultural and structuring research and organisational ap-
is provided by a socio-historical context ± plications of KM.
usually made available through the everyday All models must be treated with caution.
experience of individuals. Overall, this social An example (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996) is
constructionist view of KM equates more to the modelling of information systems which
the left side of Table I. sometimes can be imposed on organisations
If KM is to continue as an emerging from a technical viewpoint rather than asking
paradigm, and not simply be a convenient the customers (internal organisational mem-
mechanistic tool, then the field must address bers) what actually happens or what is
the social side of knowledge construction required. In commenting on the modelling of
(mainly the left side of Table I) in addition to operations research, which assumes models
the more scientific side of knowledge con- are built on objective results, Alvesson and
struction (right-hand side of Table I). By Willmott (1992) describe such assumptions
taking this more holistic viewpoint KM can as ``naive realism''. Thus models must be
play an important role in post-capitalist treated with caution. It is suggested that they
deregulated organisations which emphasise are useful so long as they are critiqued to
knowledge and learning (all of Table I). For understand the underlying assumptions in the
example, KM plays a key role in facilitating representation, rather than accepting them as
communities of practice that form as learning objective representations of reality.
groups within widely dispersed or virtual Recognising these considerations and lim-
itations, the following paragraphs give a
organisations (such as ABB and McKinseys).
critique of some typical models in the field of
The conception of KM as an emerging
KM. The models have been selected as
paradigm consistent with larger movements in
covering a range of KM views, rather than as
organisational theory and practice has im-
an exhaustive list of KM models. Broadly, the
portant implications. For example, Kuhn
literature identifies three categories of KM
(1974) points out that when a paradigm is
models, namely knowledge category models,
identified by the academic community then
intellectual capital models and social con-
research is undertaken to articulate and fill
structed models.
out the paradigm. Perhaps this explains the
phenomenal increase in academic research in
Knowledge category models
the area of KM over the past few years. Also
These types of model categorise knowledge
when a paradigm is identified (by conversion
into discrete elements. For example, Non-
or otherwise) there is a wide range of aka's model is an attempt at giving a high-
organisational applications developed from level conceptual representation of KM and
the theory. Once again the literature reflects essentially considers KM as a knowledge
an enormous growth in the number of creation process. In its simplest form it is
organisations of all types becoming involved shown in Figure 1 (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
in KM. As knowledge is fundamental to 1995).
organisations, learning the potential implica- As seen from Figure 1, knowledge is
tions of an emerging paradigm in this area has considered as consisting of tacit and explicit
potentially enormous consequences for the elements. Tacit knowledge is defined by
field of management learning and organisa- Polanyi (1962) as nonverbalised, intuitive and
tional development. unarticulated. Explicit or articulated

Figure 1 Nonaka's knowledge management model

A critique of knowledge management

Many models of KM, covering a wide

spectrum of viewpoints, are described in the
literature. A critique of these models is helpful
in that the underlying assumptions and
reasoning can be revealed. In this section a
number of KM models are critiqued and a
preferred representative model is tentatively
suggested as useful for further work on
95
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

knowledge is specified as being in writing, This model assumes there are four different
drawings, computer programs etc. (Hedlund, levels of ``carriers'', or agents, of knowledge in
1994). However, is it appropriate to solely organisations (ontological axis) ± namely the
categorise knowledge in such a way? Where individual, the small group, the organisation
does the concept of P and Q knowledge and the interorganisational domain (impor-
(McLoughlin and Thorpe, 1993) fit with this tant customers, suppliers, competitors etc.).
view, where P is programmed knowledge and While the model is helpful in that it relates the
Q is knowledge gained by questioning insight. carriers to the types of knowledge (albeit
Tacit knowledge does not exactly map onto limited), it remains problematic in that it
Q, neither does explicit knowledge exactly assumes the carriers, like the knowledge, can
map unto P. Thus P and Q represent a be simply segregated (more consistent with
different categorisation of knowledge. There- the right-hand side of Table I). An analogy is
fore from a critical standpoint Nonaka's drawn with the management competency
categorisation of knowledge is perhaps limited movement which assumes a simplistic deseg-
or unidimensional. regation of management tasks rather than a
The model assumes tacit knowledge can be more representative holistic approach.
transferred through a process of socialisation Another example of a knowledge category
into tacit knowledge in others and that tacit model is that of Boisot (1987). Figure 3
knowledge can become explicit knowledge shows Boisot's model which considers
through a process of externalisation (top 2 knowledge as either codified or uncodified,
squares of the model in Figure 1). The model and as diffused or undiffused, within an
also assumes (bottom 2 squares) that explicit organisation. Boisot uses the term ``codified''
knowledge can be transferred into tacit to refer to knowledge that can be readily
knowledge in others through a process of prepared for transmission purposes (e.g.
internalisation, and that explicit knowledge financial data). The term ``uncodified'' refers
can be transferred to explicit knowledge in to knowledge that cannot be easily prepared
others through a process of combination. for transmission purposes (e.g. experience).
Therefore, the transforming processes are The term ``diffused'' refers to knowledge that
assumed to be socialisation (everyday com- is readily shared while ``undiffused'' refers to
radeship), externalisation (formalising a body knowledge that is not readily shared.
of knowledge), internalisation (translating If knowledge is categorised as both codified
theory into practice) and combination (com- and undiffused (top left quadrant of Figure
bining existing theories). However, perhaps 3), then the knowledge is referred to as
knowledge transfer in organisations is much propriety knowledge. In this case, knowledge
more complicated and convoluted than this is prepared for transmission but is deliberately
simple matrix suggests. Perhaps this model restricted to a selectively small population, on
implies a mechanistic approach to knowledge a ``need to know'' basis (e.g. projected profits,
categorisation more consistent with the right- share price issues). The bottom left quadrant
hand side of Table I, although the four of Figure 3 covers knowledge that is relatively
processes within the model, as described uncodified and undiffused, which is referred
above, could be interpreted as largely con- to as personal knowledge (e.g. perceptions,
sistent with the left-hand side of Table I. insights, experiences). The top right quadrant
A more elaborate version of Nonaka's covers knowledge that is both codified and
model is shown in Figure 2 (Hedlund and diffused and is referred to as public knowl-
Nonaka, 1993). edge (e.g. journals, books, libraries). Finally,

Figure 2 Hedlund and Nonaka's knowledge management model

96
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

Figure 3 Boisot's knowledge category model Figure 4 Intellectual capital model of knowledge management (Skandia)

the bottom right quadrant of Figure 3 refers

to common sense knowledge which is
relatively diffused but also uncodified. Such
knowledge is considered by Boisot as being
built up slowly by a process of socialisation,
harbouring customs and intuition (more
consistent with the left-hand side of Table I). predicated on this type of model. The model
There are a number of parallels between assumes a very scientific approach to knowl-
Nonaka's model and that of Boisot. For edge and assumes it can be commodified ±
example, Nonaka's categorisation of explicit hence the link with organisational capital (this
and tacit knowledge has at least some degree approach is consistent with the right-hand
of correspondence with Boisot's reference to side of Table I). Skandia was the first
codified and uncodified knowledge. Also, in company in the world to publish a supple-
both models the horizontal dimension relates ment to its annual report on the company's
to the spread or diffusion of knowledge across intellectual capital philosophy and activities
the organisation. Boisot's model suffers the (Chase, 1997). However, this intellectual
same limitations as Nonaka's model in that capital view of KM ignores the political and
codified and uncodified are but two discrete social aspects of KM. Also, like Nonaka's
categories of knowledge (more relevant to the model, it assumes KM can be decomposed
right-hand side of Table I). Also, the idea of into objective elements rather than being a
diffused knowledge (less defined ontological socio-political phenomenon. This mechanis-
axis than Nonaka's model) is rather general tic approach, more consistent with the right-
and it is not clear if it includes incorporating hand side of Table I, can result in simplistic
knowledge within the organisation, as well as mechanised approaches to complex social-
spreading it. related issues (e.g. reward and recognition,
In summary, knowledge category models of power relations, empowerment etc.)
KM involve knowledge transforming pro- The Skandia example, as described by Lank
cesses of socialisation similar to the left-hand gives a strong emphasis to measurement
side of Table I. However, some of the associated with each of these decomposed
categorisation of knowledge in these models is elements of KM assuming it can be tightly
mechanistic and more consistent with the controlled, as is the case for tangible assets.
right-hand side of Table I. Unfortunately this approach can result in
attempts to fit objective measures to subjec-
Intellectual capital models tive elements. Once again this mechanistic
A number of models in the literature repre- approach to measurement is more consistent
sent KM as essentially intellectual capital with the right-hand side of Table I.
(IC). A typical IC model is the Skandia IC In summary, intellectual capital models are
model (Figure 4 from Chase, 1997; and Roos mechanistic in nature, and assume that
and Roos, 1997). knowledge can be treated as an asset, similar
The model assumes IC or KM can be to other assets. Such an approach is largely
segregated into human, customer, process associated with the right-hand side of Table I.
and growth elements which are contained in
two main categories of human capital and Socially constructed models of KM
structural/organisation capital. Lank's (1997) This group of models assumes a wide defini-
account of the Skandia approach to KM is tion of knowledge and views knowledge as
97
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

being intrinsically linked within the social and knowledge construction. Perhaps the solid
learning processes within the organisation. arrows or main flow is a limitation in that it
There is a large area of commonality between implies that recursive flows are less important.
these types of models and those models It also implies a simplistic processual ap-
seeking to represent the learning organisation proach (mechanistic and hence akin to the
and organisational learning (e.g. Burgoyne et right-hand side of Table I) while, in reality,
al., 1994). A typical example of these types of the flows of knowledge transfer may be
models is shown in Figure 5. extremely rapid and circulatory, as in the case
The model is Demerest's (1997) adaptation for some forms of action learning.
of Clark and Staunton's (1989) model of KM The ``use'' box in the model is limited to
(Figure 5). Firstly, the model emphasises the organisational outputs and does not include
construction of knowledge within the organi- emancipatory enhancements (hence, it is
sation. This construction is not limited to more orientated towards the right-hand side
scientific inputs but is seen as including the of Table I). These factors can be seen as
social construction of knowledge. The model complementary rather than mutually
assumes that constructed knowledge is then exclusive.
embodied within the organisation, not just Figure 6 is a slightly modified version of
through explicit programmes but through a Demerest's model which seeks to address
process of social interchange. Following these limitations by explicitly showing the
embodiment there is a process of dissemina- influence of both social and scientific para-
tion of the espoused knowledge throughout digms of knowledge construction (hence both
the organisation and its environs (this ap- sides of Table I). The model also extends the
proach is consistent with the left-hand side of ``use'' element to cover both business and
Table I). Ultimately the knowledge is seen as employee benefits. If KM is to have the
being of economic use in regard to organisa- support and commitment of all stakeholders
tional outputs. The solid arrows in Figure 5 in an organisation then employee emancipa-
show the primary flow direction while the tion must be addressed along with the
plain arrows show the more recursive flows. business benefits. These issues should not be
The model is similar to that of Jordan and seen as mutually exclusive but as comple-
Jones (1997) who speak of knowledge acqui- mentary. Also more recursive arrows are
sition, problem solving, dissemination, added to Figure 6 to show that KM is not
ownership and storage. There are also simi- seen as a simple sequential process.
larities with Kruizinga et al.'s (1997) model It is suggested that the model of Figure 6 is
which includes knowledge policy, infrastruc- a useful means for structuring further research
ture and culture. There are also parallels with into the field of KM as it represents a
Scarborough's (1996) approach which covers balanced view of Table I. It allows KM to be
strategic knowledge, structural and cultural associated with the emerging social paradigm
knowledge, systems knowledge and commu- while at the same time contributing to the
nities of practice and routines. The model in current paradigm (Table I).
Figure 5 is attractive in that it does not
assume any given definition of knowledge but Figure 6 Modified version of Demerest's knowledge management model
rather invites a more holistic approach to

Figure 5 Knowledge management model

98
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

Conclusions and recommendations Burgoyne, J., Pedlar, M. and Boydell, T. (1994), Towards
the Learning Company, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.
Brooking, A. (1997), ``The management of intellectual
The examination of existing definitions and
capital'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
classifications of KM show a wide spectrum No. 3, pp. 364-5.
of viewpoints. These range from the more Clarke, P. and Staunton, N. (1989), Innovation in
mechanistic to more socially orientated. The Technology and Organisation, Routledge, London.
mechanistic type of definitions and classifi- Chase, R. (1997), ``The knowledge based organisation: an
cations assume an intellectual capital international survey'', Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1.
approach (knowledge viewed as an asset)
Clegg, S., Barrett, M., Clarke, T., Dwyer, L., Gray, J., Kemp,
while the social type assumes a social con- S. and Marceau, J. (1996), ``Management knowl-
structionist approach where knowledge is edge for the future: innovation, embryos and new
constructed in the social relationships within paradigms'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G. (Eds),
organisations. The Politics of Management Knowledge, Sage,
Clegg et al.'s (1996) classification of old London.
and new paradigms enabled Table I to be Demerest, M. (1997), ``Understanding knowledge man-
agement'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
constructed which was found to be a useful No. 3, pp. 374-84.
evaluative framework for examining KM De Jarnett, L. (1996), ``Knowledge the latest thing'',
models and their associated assumptions. Information Strategy, The Executives Journal,
Three broad classifications of models were Vol. 12, pt 2, pp. 3-5.
identified and critiqued. Firstly, knowledge Drucker, P. (1995), ``The information executives truly
category models made reference to social need'', Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb,
pp. 54-62.
processes for transforming knowledge; how- EFQM Report (1997), Knowledge Management in Europe,
ever the categorisation of knowledge in these Current Practice Survey Results, September.
models was somewhat mechanistic. Secondly, Gergen, J. (1991), The Saturated Self, Basic Books, USA.
the intellectual capital models were found to Handy, C. (1990), ``The age of unreason'', Harvard
be more mechanistic, assuming that knowl- Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hedlund, G. (1994), ``A model of knowledge management
edge can be treated similarly to other assets
and the N-Form Corporation'', Strategic Manage-
(right-hand side of Table I). Thirdly, socially ment Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90.
constructed models were found to give a more Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), ``Models of knowledge
balanced approach between the scientific and management in the West and Japan'', in Lorange,
social approaches to KM. B., Chakravarthy, B., Roos, J. and Van de Ven, H.
Finally, Figure 6 was constructed, a sug- (Eds), Implementing Strategic Processes, Change,
gested approach to KM (based on socially Learning and Cooperation, Macmillan, London,
pp. 117-44.
constructed models ± Figure 5). This model Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), ``Assessing your
takes a balanced approach between scientific company's knowledge management style'',
and socially constructed knowledge. Also the Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
``uses/benefits'' of KM are viewed as both pp. 392-8.
emancipatory and as business oriented. Kemmis, S. (1985), ``Action research and the politics of
Throughout the model, knowledge flows are reflection'', in Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D.
(Eds), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning,
seen as highly recursive rather than as Kogan Page, London, pp. 139-63.
sequential. It is suggested that this model Kruizinga, E., Heijst, G. and Spek, R. (1997), ``Knowledge
could act as a useful guide for further research infrastructures and intranets'', Journal of Knowledge
and literature evaluation in the area of Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, Aug/Sept, pp. 27-32.
knowledge management. Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolution,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kuhn, T. (1974), ``Second thoughts on paradigms'', in
Suppe, F. (Ed.), The Search for Philosophical
References Scientific Theories, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
Lank, E. (1997), ``Leveraging invisible assets: the human
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), Critical Manage- factor'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
ment Studies, Sage, London. No. 3, pp. 406-12.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning:
Management, Sage, London. Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
Boisot, M. (1987), Information and Organisations: The University Press.
Manager as Anthropologist, Fontana/Collins, McLoughlin, H. and Thorpe, R. (1993), ``Action learning ±
London. a paradigm in emergence: the problems facing a
Burgoyne, J. and Reynolds, M. (1997), Managing challenge to traditional management education and
Learning, Integrating Perspectives in Theory and development'', British Journal of Management,
Practice, Sage, London. Vol. 4, pp. 19-27.
99
 A critical review of knowledge management methods The Learning Organization
Rodney McAdam and Sandra McCreedy Volume 6 . Number 3 . 1999 . 91±100

Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisations, Sage, Richardson, J., Eysenck, M. and Piper, D. (1987), Student
London. Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, K. (1995), The Knowledge Psychology, Open University Press, London.
Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), ``Measuring your company's
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford intellectual performance'', Journal of Long Range
University Press, Oxford. Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 413-26.
Peters, T. (1992), Liberation Management, Pan Books, Scarborough, H. (1996), Business Process Re-design: The
New York, NY. Knowledge Dimension, http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/
Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post rc-rep-8.1, November.
Taylor et al. (1997), International Journal of Technology
Critical Philosophy, Harper, Torchbooks, New York,
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 385-91.
NY.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), ``Knowledge
management: a strategic agenda'', Journal of Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-91. Further reading
Ramsay, H. (1996), ``Managing sceptically: a critique of
organisational fashion'', in Clegg, S. and Palmer, G. Edvinsson, L. (1997), ``Developing intellectual capital at
(Eds), The Politics of Management Knowledge, Skandia'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
Sage, London. No. 3, pp. 366-73.

100