Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Senge (1997)
THE FIFTH DISCIPLINEMeasuring Business Excellence, 1
Joseph Firestone, M. McElroy (2003)
Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management
K. Weick (2021)
FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONSThe New Economic Sociology
Chun Choo (1998)
The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning
Thomas Wilson (2002)
The nonsense of knowledge managementInf. Res., 8
N. Macmorrow (2001)
Knowledge management: An introduction, 35
M. McElroy (2002)
The New Knowledge Management
Joseph Firestone (2002)
Enterprise Information Portals and Knowledge Management
N. Belkin, R. Oddy, H. Brooks (1997)
Ask for Information Retrieval: Part I. Background and TheoryJ. Documentation, 38
M. Buckland (1991)
Information as thingJ. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 42
M. McElroy (2002)
The New Knowledge Management: Complexity,Learning,and Sustainable Innovation
I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi (1995)
The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
A. Serenko, N. Bontis (2004)
Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankingsKnowledge and Process Management, 11
(1993)
On organizational learning
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of some guidelines to evaluate new knowledge management (KM) models and frameworks, by means of the presentation and analysis of The New Knowledge Management, a model developed by the North‐American consultants Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy, and the associated knowledge life cycle. Design/methodology/approach – This is an analysis that encompasses epistemological issues and KM theory, intending to review some fundamental concepts and make comparisons to preeminent works. The KM framework examined is grounded on the philosopher Popper's ideas and has in its core the process of knowledge claim validation, which distinguishes it from other information‐oriented approaches. Based on the guidelines pointed, some of the aspects of the KM model exposed are outlined and criticized, among them the difficulty of establishing a meta‐theory that could support the judgment of diverse knowledge claims. Findings – The guidelines found useful to analyze KM models are: the observance of the adopted scope, the concern over the fundamental concepts, the extension of the employed interdisciplinary procedures, the authors' intentions and background, and the possible comparisons and analogies to concepts and theories of related fields. Practical implications – Many KM solutions and practices are implemented in the organizations without a solid theoretic background. The guidelines can help to choose from the myriad KM models and frameworks that show up uninterruptedly. Originality/value – The paper focuses on providing methodological means to analyze and evaluate new KM models, not on merely discussing one of them.
VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Keywords: Knowledge Management; Intellectual capital
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.