Tài liệu Defining Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies pdf

& Research Article
Defining Process-oriented Knowledge
Management Strategies
Ronald Maier* and Ulrich Remus
University of Regensburg, Germany
Along which basic lines could an organization which plans to invest in knowledge
management proceed? What general initiatives can be suggested for knowledge management?
First, an array of knowledge management goals and strategies is presented taken from
theoretical and empirical studies which are then related to each other in the light of what we
call a strategic intervention into an organization’s way of handling knowledge. We then make
the case for the integration of process orientation into a comprehensive multi-dimensional
framework for knowledge management strategies. Process-oriented knowledge management
initiatives are designed to provide employees with task-related knowledge in the organiza-
tion’s operative business processes. We argue that with this framework the resulting process-
oriented knowledge management strategies address the integration of the resource-based
view of an organization — which is the main focus of knowledge management — with the
market-oriented view — which is implicitly brought about by process orientation. Copyright
# 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge Management (KM) and Organizational
Memory (OM) are concepts well known from
organizational science and learning theory. Many
approaches have been developed which claim to
guide organizations to use their common or shared
memory in a more efficient way (for extensive
surveys of existing KM or OM approaches see
Lehner, 2000; Maier and Lehner, 2000). With the
advent of advanced database technologies, net and
communication technologies, especially the so-
called ‘Intranet’ or ‘Web’ technologies, as well as
dedicated knowledge management systems (KMS,

for a list of systems see Maier, 2002), sound infor-
mation and communication technologies exist
to support organizational processes of creating,
acquiring, organizing, distributing and applying
knowledge.
There are already a large number of KM
activities implemented in organizations which
often lack a strategic perspective. KM seems to
‘absorb’ all kinds of theoretical approaches as well
as practical activities, measures and technologies
without thorough consideration of their strategic
or business value. We hypothesize that an organi-
zation should follow a complex KM strategy as
part of a comprehensive business strategy. A KM
strategy can be described using several dimensions
derived from a theoretical and empirical survey of
KM activities, measures and technologies.
Process orientation is a perspective widely
accepted in organization science. Recently, there
have been a number of attempts to integrate KM
and process orientation (cf. Davenport et al., 1996;
Allweyer, 1999; Eppler et al., 1999). However, until
now there has been no link between the two
concepts on the strategic level. Organizations
which have already implemented a process-
oriented organizational design can use process-
orientation as one of the strategic dimensions. The
goals of this paper are:
$ To lay out a framework that shows the strategic
*Correspondence to: Ronald Maier, Department of Business

Informatics III, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg,
Germany. E-mail:
Knowledge and Process Management Volume 9 Number 2 pp 103–118 (2002)
DOI: 10.1002 / kpm.136
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
options an organization has with respect to KM.
The framework details the very general classes
of KM strategies suggested in the literature (see
e.g. Hansen et al., 1999).
$ To address the integration of the resource-based
view of an organization incorporated into KM
initiatives with the market-oriented view. In
order to accomplish this we make the case for
the integration of process orientatio n into a
strategic framework for KM.
The paper is structured as follows. The next
section describes the state of the art of KM
strategies on the basis of an empirical investigation
performed by one of the authors and a literature
review on theoretical and empirical studies. Then
we will motivate process orientation as the starting
point for the formulation of a KM strategy. The
derivation of a process-oriented knowledge man-
agement strategy from a general business strategy
is outlined. The fourth section describes a set of
dimensions of KM strategies. The fifth section
presents the complete framework with all dimen-
sions including the process-oriented dimension
and some hints for the application of the frame-
work. The final section concludes the paper and

gives an outlook on a future research agenda.
STATE OF THE ART OF KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN
PRACTICE
This section presents some empirical results con-
cerning KM goals and strategies as well as the
relationship to business strategy. The results were
obtained in an empirical study which was con-
ducted by one of the authors (for a detailed
description of the study and its results see Maier,
2002) and in a literature survey on other empirical
studies the results of which are presented towards
the end of this section. The empirical study
‘knowledge management systems ’99’ investigated
the state of the art of the use of KMS in the 500
largest German companies and the top 50 banking
and insurance companies which resulted in the
development of concepts, scenarios and reference
models for the management of KMS in organiza-
tions. From a total of 504 questionnaires sent out,
73 organizations responded (response rate: 14.5).
In 22 of the 73 responding organizations (30.1%)
KM was well established. To check this percen-
tage, we did a telephone survey of 243 organiza-
tions originally questioned that showed that this
percentage is representative of the sample. The
questionnaire (in German) together with related
material and publications can be downloaded
from the URL: -regensburg.
de/yoms.

The list of KM goals which we used in the
empirical study was derived from case studies
documented in the literature (see e.g. Davenport
et al., 1998) as well as empirical data found in
studies on KM (e.g. Earl and Scott, 1999; ILOI,
1997; Bullinger et al., 1997). The questionnaire
contained, among others, the question: ‘How
much does your organization aim at the following
goals?’ In most of the organizations so far KM is
an internal activity that is focused (almost) exclu-
sively on the organization-internal knowledge
base. With the exception of ‘improving innovation’
which can be seen as a very general goal those KM
goals that are focused strongly by most if not all
organizations primarily try to
(1) Improve the handling of existing knowledge in
documents or in people’s heads: ‘improve trans-
parency’ (17 organizations strongly aim at
this goal), ‘improve access’ (14), ‘improve
documentation’ (13) and ‘retention of knowl-
edge’ (14), or to
(2) Improve the sharing of knowledge: ‘improve
knowledge sharing’ (12), ‘improve commu-
nication’ (13).
Twelve out of 18 organizations (=66.7%) aimed
at eight or more KM goals strongly at the same
time. Thus, it seems that KM initia tives are
currently very broadly and vaguely defined pro-
jects.
Additionally, we asked ‘To what extent does

your organization achieve the following goals?’ The
rates of achievement of most of the KM goals were
ranked on average between 3.71 and 4.63 (on a
7-point scale with 7 being the highest score)
showing a medium level of achievement. Thus, it
seems that the KM efforts of the responding
organizations, on average, still have some way to
go until the more advanced benefits can be
harvested.
Concerning the relationship of KM initiatives to
business goals, the highest benefits are estimated
to be in the rather ‘soft’ areas like ‘improve custo-
mer satisfaction’, ‘improve spee d of innovat ion’
whereas the quantitative criteria do not achieve
equally high estimates (e.g. ‘reduce costs’,
‘improve growth of organization’). It is interesting
to note that two of the three highest-ranked goals
(‘improve customer satisfaction’, ‘improve produc-
tivity’) are also typical business process reengi-
neering goals.
Additionally, we asked how many business
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
104 R. Maier and U. Remus
processes the organizations targeted with their KM
initiatives. It is not surprising that only 13
respondents (65% of those responding to this
question) answered this question whereas 7
respondents indicated that they did not know
how many business processes were targeted. In
the remaining 53 cases the organizational design of

the KM initiative was not (yet) detailed enough to
cover this aspect. Of the 13 respondents 9 did not
focus on business processes, but supported all
business processes throughout the organization.
The other 4 respondents focused on 2, 3, 4 and 10
business processes (1 case per answer). As
hypothesized, it seems that process orientation is
not yet focused in most of the KM activities of
German organizations despite the fact that most
organizations had already undergone business
process management programs in the past.
There are also a number of authors who
pragmatically suggest a series of KM instruments,
activities or efforts as ‘strategies’. They neither
detail the link to business strategies nor do they
distinguish between strategies, on the one hand ,
and instruments, activities or efforts to implement
strategies, on the other. Most of these authors base
their findings on empirical studies investigating
KM initiatives in organizations. Examples are (see
Ruggles, 1998, p.85f; Hansen et al., 1999, p.278f;
APQC, 1996, pp.18ff):
(1) Map sources of internal expertise: the issue is to
make knowledge assets visible, to increase
managers’ attention; the focus is on the
personal side of the knowledge in an organi-
zation, e.g. expert directories, skill databases,
yellow pages.
(2) Establish new knowledge roles: create a separate
organizational unit, create positions or roles

responsible for knowledge-related tasks, such
as knowledge broker or knowledge engi neer,
assign personal responsibility for knowledge.
(3) Create a (virtual) work environment which
enables the sharing of tacit knowledge: the issue
is to create virtual workspaces, networks of
knowledge workers which provide an alter-
native environment to the co-located work-
space, thus enabling the sharing of tacit
knowledge.
(4) Support knowledge flows in an organization:
knowledge seekers and knowledge providers
should be connected using systems and tools
which provide for a balancing of pull and
push of knowledge. KMS are needed which
adapt to usage and communication patterns
of knowledge seekers and providers.
(5) Knowledge management as a business strategy:
KM is either integrated within the overall busin-
ess strategy or treated as a separate business
strategy in parallel with other strategies.
(6) Customer-focused knowledge: the aim of this
strategy is to capture knowledge about cus-
tomers, their needs, preferences, businesses
and their reactions to actions taken by the
organization etc.
(7) Intellectual asset management strategy: the aim
of this strategy is the enterprise-level man-
agement of patents, technologies, operational
and management practices, customer rela-

tions, organizational arrangements, and
other knowledge assets.
(8) Innovation and knowledge creation: research and
development is focused to enhance innova-
tion and the creation of new knowledge.
The state of the art of KM strategies in practice
can be described as follows. There are already a
large number of initiatives in organizations under
way. They combine very different approaches and
singular activities which are supposed to deliver
business value by improving the way an organiza-
tion handles knowledge. KM in practice seems to
be an effort that comprises all kinds of different
activities, measures and technologies. Unfortu-
nately, it seems that organizations do not pay
much attention to the strategic value of their
initiatives or the link between KM activities and
the business strategy or competitive advantages.
Thus, it is unclear how a resulting KM strategy can
be characterized and detailed.
PROCESS-ORIENTATION FOR
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
We will first briefly review the advantages of pro-
cess orientation before we address the resource-
based view and the market-oriented view of an
organization, and finally discuss a process-
oriented KM strategy.
Advantages of process orientation
The process-oriented view offers the following

advantages for a KM initiative:
$ Value chain orientation: The process-oriented view
combines the task-oriented and the knowledge-
oriented viewpoint into a value chain-oriented
perspective (see explanations above). Knowl-
edge that contributes to value-creating activi-
ties can successfully be linked to business
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 105
processes. Thus, knowledge can be offered to
an employee in a much more targeted way. At
the same time, information overload can be
avoided, since only information relevant to the
value-creating activity is filtered and made
available (see Schreiber et al., 1999, p.72; Bach
et al., 1999, p.27).
$ Context relevance: Processes can provide part of
the co ntext that is important for the interpreta-
tion and construction of process-relevant
knowledge. That includes knowledge about
processes that is to be stored together with
knowledge derived from processes during their
operation.
$ Widely accepted management methods: There are at
least ten years of experience in reengineering
business processes. The ad aptation of activities
within business process reengineering (BPR) for
the specific needs of reengineering knowledge-
intensive business processes (cf. Davenport
et al., 1996) can be a promising area. This

includes adapted process models, expanded
modeling activities (cf. Remus and Lehner,
2000), reference models and tools (cf. Allweyer,
1999). Expertise in BPR is readily available for
organizations.
$ Improvement in handling of knowledge: Next to the
advantages resulting from an organization’s
analysis of its own business processes, such as
clarifying tasks and promoting an integrative
view, process-orientation can lead to a more
targeted improvement in the handling of knowl-
edge in terms of Kno wledge Process Redesign
(KPR) (see Davenport et al., 1996; Allweyer,
1999; Eppler et al., 1999).
$ Process benchmarking: The comparison of very
successful knowledge-intensive business pro-
cesses can be a good starting point for activities
in the field of KPR. Since these weakly struc-
tured processes are often difficult to describe,
efforts in this field seem to be quite reasonable.
An example is the success of the MIT process
handbook which also includes many typical
knowledge-intensive business processes (see
Malone et al. 1999).
$ Support for process-oriented knowledge manage-
ment: Knowledge processes that handle the
flow of information between processes can
be implemented and established organization-
wide (e.g. by creating the position ‘process
owner’). Knowledge processes can manage

knowledge as service processes for the opera-
tive business processes. The implementation of
process management which also comprises the
idea of continuous process improvement (CPI)
can integrate the life cycle models of KM.
$ Process controlling: A problem in KM is trans-
parency about costs and benefits. Pragmatic
approaches to knowledge controlling could
profit from a process-oriented approach. Some
approaches within the field of active based
costing (Scheer 1998, pp.66ff) seem to be appro-
priate and have to be adapted to knowle dge-
intensive processes as well.
$ Designing and introducing KMS: The analysis of
business processes can be a good starting point
to design and introduce KMS (see Nissen et al.,
2000, p.40; cf. CommonKADS methodology for
knowledge engineering and management,
Schreiber et al., 1999). Information derived from
processes can also be used to specify KMS
more precisely (e.g. process-oriented navigation
structure, process-oriented knowledge maps
and knowledge structur e diagrams).
Knowledge management and business strategy
The so-called market-based view was most pro-
minently developed and pushed by the frame-
works proposed by Porter (e.g. the well-known
five-forces model, Porter, 1980, p.4; the value
chain, Porter, 1985, pp.36ff; the diamond, Porter,
1990, p.71f). These frameworks help to analyze the

organization’s environment, namely the attractive-
ness of industries and competitive positions (for
the follow ing see Porter, 1980, pp.3ff, 1985). In
its extreme form, the market-based view almost
exclusively pays attention to the competitive posi-
tion and it is mostly only in the implementation
phase that the organizational resources are con-
sidered. The main focus of a strategy in the
market-based view is to select an attractive
industry and to position an organization attrac-
tively within this industry through one of the two
generic strategies cost-leadership or differentia-
tion. Along with the two possibilities of industry-
wide activities versus a concen tration on a specific
niche within the industry, a resulting set of four
generic strategies is proposed.
However, criticism of the one-sided orienta-
tion of the market-based view resulted in the
development of the resource-based view (see
Wernerfelt, 1984; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990;
Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992).
The central idea of the resource-based view is
that an organization’s success is determined by the
existence of organization-specific unique resour-
ces. As opposed to the market-based view, compe-
titive advantages thus are not due to a superior
positioning of an organization in an industry, but
to superior quality of resources or a superior use
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
106 R. Maier and U. Remus

of the organizational resources. The postulated
heterogeneity of resources in different organiza-
tions enables sustained competitive advantages and
is determined by the individual historical devel-
opments of the organization. Examples are the
development of specific material and immaterial
resources, the creation of complex organizat ional
routines which in turn causes specific historical
trajectories and lead to uniqu e idiosyncratic com-
binations of resources in organizations (see
Barney, 1991, pp.103ff).
A framework for a knowledge management
strategy can be based on the traditional SWOT
analysis in which strategy is seen as balancing the
external environment of an organization (its
Opportunities and Threats) with its internal cap-
abilities (
Strengths, Weaknesses, see Zack, 1999b,
p.126). The external environment can be described
by Porter’s well-known five forces model (see
Porter, 1980) which represe nts a market-oriented
strategy. The internal capabilities are studied
under the lens of the resource-based view of an
organization. Knowledge is commonly believed to
be one of the most important, if not the most
important strategic resource of an organization.
Consequently, there is broad agreement in the
management literature that KM has to be solidly
linked to business strategy and ultimately to the
creation of economic value and competitive advan-

tage in order to be a sustained effort (see e.g. Earl
and Scott, 1999, p.36f; Zack, 1999b, p.142). How-
ever, this link has not been widely implemented in
practice (see Zack , 1999b, p.126 and the empirical
studies cited there). This is due to the lack of
strategic models to link KM efforts (in the sense
of knowledge-oriented processes, organizational
structures and instruments, culture-related activi-
ties and the implementation of techno logies) and
business strategy.
KM activities are performed with the help of
knowledge processes like knowledge identifica-
tion, knowledge organization and knowledge dis-
tribution (see Probst and Raub, 1998, p.51). Besides
the advantages of the resource-based view for a
business strategy and also for a KM strategy there
is the danger that an organization focuses (almost)
exclusively on its internal resources. The respec-
tive shortcomings are well described under the
concept of core rigidity (see Raub and Romhardt,
1998, cit. Barton, 1992). Core rigidity means that an
organization does not consider market-oriented
factors, like new business fields, customer groups,
new competitors and therefore might loose com-
petitiveness.
On the other hand, it is also not advisable that
organizations exclusively consider market-oriented
factors in their strategy. A typical example would
be a diversification into industries with which the
organization is not familiar. From a resource-based

view an exclusive market-oriented strategy can
result in a fragmentation and erosion of the
organizational knowledge base. This is due to the
danger that competencies needed for the new
strategic business unit cannot be integrated with
the existing organizational knowledge base
because often there is a lack of competencies (or
simply time!) to evolve, manage and integrate
these separate knowledge bases.
Figure 1 gives a more detailed picture of the
relationships between knowledge management
and a simplified version of the strategic man age-
ment process (Schendel and Hofer, 1979, 15). The
first step of this process is the identification of the
key resources related to knowledge management.
At the same time the competitive environment has
to be analyzed in order to provide a focus for the
identification of the resources. Resources are only
meaningful and valuable, because they allow organi-
zations to perform activities that create advan-
tages in particular markets (see Porter, 1991,
p.108). Knowledge management supports the
identification, development and acquisition of
knowledge-related resources. Zack’s concept of
knowledge gap can be found on this level.
The next step is the selection of strategically
relevant resources in order to provide organiza-
tional competencies or capabilities. Resources are
only indirectly linked with the capabilities that
the firm can generate. A competency or capability

consists of an integrated, linked and networked set
of resources, a ‘team of resources’ (Grant, 1991,
p.120). Knowledge management aims at lever-
aging resources, e.g. by concen trating them upon
a few clearly defined goals, accumulating resour-
ces through mining experience and accessing other
firms’ resources, complementing resources, con-
serving them to use resources for different pro-
ducts and markets and recovering resources by
increasing the speed of the product development
cycle time (see Grant, 1998, p.126).
Figure 1 also shows a circle model visualizing
the four dimensions of capabilities: skills and the
organizational knowledge base, technical systems,
managerial systems and the values and norm s
associated with organizational knowledge (see
Leonard-Barton, 1992, p.113f). Capabilities can be
compared to the competition. Capabilities and com-
petencies are considered as core if they differ-
entiate a company strategically. The resulting
capability differentials give rise to competitive
advantages which can be realized by applying the
competencies in selected strategic business fields.
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 107
Knowledge management supports the integration
of resources into capabilities, the valuation of
capability differentials and drives the dynamics
of the organizational learning cycle as sustained
capability differentials require continuos improve-

ment of the competencies.
Instead of following these extreme positions,
we suggest to balance market- and resource-
orientation. Therefore, an organization should
organize its internal resources according to a
resource-based strategy by managing knowledge-
based resources with the help of KM activities.
Simultaneously, it should choose competitive busi-
ness fields, customer groups, products and ser-
vices according to a market-based strategy.
The definition of corporate goals and corporate
analysis identifies, on the one hand, strategic
business units (SBU) and, on the other hand, fields
of core competencies. These tasks are at first
independent of the organizational design which
represents the next step of the strategic manage-
ment process. Besides designing the organizational
structure it is necessary to design the correspond-
ing tasks and workflows. This can be done by
defining business processes.
Business processes can be organized in terms of
strategic business units or fields of core competencies.
That means that processes can be designed guided
by market- as well as resource-oriented considera-
tions.
The market-oriented corporate strategy is
strongly oriented towards cu stomers and market s
which is all the more emphasized by the concept
of process-orientation. The latter means the design
of customer-related business processes. In this case

the design of business processes is guided by
delivering value to the customer who triggers and
receives the output of the value chain (=‘end-to-
end view’, see Davenport et al., 1996) and does not
focus on organizational core competencies.
With respect to the resource-based co rporate
strategy which is at first oriented towards internal
factors process orientation can provide a useful
means to a void the danger of ‘core rigidity’. This is
due to the fact that the implementation of business
processes inherently considers market -oriented
factors because of its ‘end-to-end view’ from
customer to customer.
The following generic types of core competen-
cies can be used to design core and service
processes in the resource-based strategy (see
Scholz and Vrohlings, 1994, p.102).
Figure 1 Relationship between knowledge management and competitive advantage
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
108 R. Maier and U. Remus
$ Competence of creation: analysis of markets,
definition of products and services.
$ Competence of realization: realization of services,
procurement, production, offer add-on services.
$ Competence of transaction: develop markets,
logistics, order fulfillment, maintenance.
These core competencies are directly noticed by
customers and are organized by customer-oriented
core processes, in other words the business
processes serve to transform core competencies

into process outpu ts, i.e. products and services for
the customers.
If we compare both approaches to design
business processes it might well be that the two
resulting sets of business processes are equal
independent of the orientation of the strategy that
guided the design process.
A typical example is the order fulfillment pro-
cess which can be deriv ed directly when customer
needs are considered or the generic competence of
transaction as described above is bundled in
the order fulfillment process. Clearly, resource-
orientation and market-orientation are related as
business processes require core competencies to
deliver marketable products and services.
Process-oriented knowledge management
strategy
So far we have discusse d KM strategies and
corporate strategies in an isolated way. We then
proposed to integrate resource-based and market-
oriented factors when designing and implement-
ing business processes. In this section we will
show in detail how to integrate the resource-
based and the market-oriented view into wh at we
call a process-oriented knowledge management
strategy.
Figure 2 pres ents a framework that integrat es
market-orientation and resource-orientation with
the help of a process-oriented KM strategy.
Market-oriented factors are considered in the

definition of strategic business units. Simultaneously
organizational core competencies are defined. A
process-oriented KM strategy should be able to
balance both orientations, by considering the
organization’s core competencies when defining
strategic business units. Additionally, a process-
oriented KM strategy has to select strategic business
units which are needed for the development of
(complementary) core competencies. These tasks
are guided by strategic knowledge assets which are
developed and managed by KM activities. A
strategic knowledge asset is a concept that views
core competencies in the light of their application
for products and services, in Porter’s terms systems
of activities (Porter, 1996) that make a difference
visible for the customers (external perspective). On
the other hand, strategic knowledge assets help to
orient the development and management of core
competencies (internal perspective).
Strategic knowledge assets guide the design of
business processes. As discussed above, the design
of business processes can be guided by SBUs or by
core competencies. Strategic knowledge assets
bridge the gap between SBU’s and core competen-
cies. In the following we will discuss two scenarios
from which organizations can start to formulate a
process-oriented KM strategy. The two scenarios
represent the two extreme positions of an exclu-
sive market oriented or resource-oriented strategy
as the starting point for the implementation of a

process-oriented KM strategy.
Scenario 1: If an organization so far has applied
an exclusive market-oriented strategy, then external
determinants such as customers’ demands, the
organization’s market position and competitors’
process designs are explicitly considered in the
process desig n. One of the most important factors
towards customer orientation is the consideration
of individual requirements and is implemented,
for example, by the management of variants and
complexity and in the idea of triage to organize
three variants of a process that differ in the
amount of complexity encountered in different
markets, situations or inputs (Hammer and
Champy, 1993, p.55f).
In this scenario, a process-oriented KM strategy
will guide the process design on the organizational
level and consider the organization’s resources in
the bundling of core competencies in separate
knowledge-intensive business processes and/or
knowledge processes in the sense of service pro-
cesses for the organization’s business processes.
These newly designed processes are managed, for
example, by centers of competence (see To
¨
pfer,
1997) or specific KM roles, such as knowledge
brokers, subject matter specialists, best-practice
groups or communities-of-interest.
Scenario 2: If an organization has exclusively

applied a resource-based strategy, then business
processes are derived from core competencies.
Thus, knowledge processes that manage core
competencies supposedly are already defined. To
avoid core rigidity we have to additionally
consider market-oriented factors.
In this scenario, a process-oriented knowledge
management strategy and the definition of strate-
gic knowledge assets have to consider these
external factors in the definition of knowledge-
intensive busines s processes. An example is the
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 109
bundling of competencies in business processes
that make a visible difference to the organization’s
customers. This can be institutionalized in so-
called centers of excellence visible to the customers
or in specific KM roles, such as boundary spanners
and cross-organizational expert networks and
communities-of-interest.
To sum up, the role of a process-oriented
knowledge management strategy is to guide the
design of business and knowledge processes that
avoid the problems of core rigidity in the case of
resource-orientation and strategic ‘over-stretching’
of competencies in the case of market-orientation.
The strategic knowledge asset was introduced as
the concept connecting strategic business units and
core competencies and thus relates the external
and internal perspective resulting in core compe-

tencies visible to the customers.
Figure 2 Process-oriented KM integrates the resource-based view and the market-oriented view of an organization
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
110 R. Maier and U. Remus
A process-oriented knowledge management
strategy
The relevance of an integrated view on process
orientation and KM is underlined by strong
dependencies between these two approaches on
the operational level. Knowledge is created within
the operative business processes and shared with
other business processes.
On the other hand, knowledge also plays a crucial
role when an organization decides to implement the
concept of process management. The development
and distribution of process knowledge (see below)
in improvement or change processes is a key factor
for successful continuous process improvement
which contributes to the adaptation of an organiza-
tion to environmental change.
In a study conducted by the Fraunhofer institute
in Berlin the German Top 1000 and European Top
200 companies were questioned about what KM
activities they applied in connection with business
processes (see Mertins et al., 2001, pp.97–123). One
interesting res ult is the close relationship between
core competencies and the starting point of KM
initiatives with respect to the number of business
processes. Organizations were asked how many
business processes contributed to their core com-

petencies. More than two thirds of the companies
said that between two and five business processes
contributed to their core competencies. Similarly,
more than half of the companies started their KM
initiative in two or three business processes, 20%
even focused on one single business process. If we
assume that the duration of KM projects increases
with the number of business processes involved
we can hypothesize that companies try to gain
‘quick wins’ in knowledge management and there-
fore avoid large and complex KM projects. Not
surprisingly, the companies targeted their KM
initiatives initially on those business processes
which in their view also contributed to their core
competencies (see Mertins et al., 2001, p.101).
These results once again show the close relation-
ship between core competencies, core business
processes and KM activities in practice.
Certainly, the application of process orientation
in general and a process-oriented KM strategy in
particular has limits. The traditional perspective
which considers business processes is the model of
value chains by Porter (1985). The organization is
analyzed in terms of value creating activities,
which basically rely on the underlying business
processes. However, expanded value configuration
models like the value shop and the value network
are suitable instruments to analyze and des-
cribe new alternative value creation technologies,
especially for knowledge-intensive business pro-

cesses (cf. Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998, p.415). A
central point of all these approaches is the
orientation towards value creation. Generally, a
knowledge management strategy which uses pro-
cess orientation as the primary perspective to
analyze an organization is strongly dependen t on
the following requirements and conditions:
$ The core business of the organization which is
about to design a knowledge management stra-
tegy is viewed and managed using a process-
oriented perspective. Business pro cesses are
modeled and described and theref ore visible
for the employees.
$ Process-oriented management activities have
already been carried out (e.g. business process
reengineering, business process impro vement,
process management). Process-orientation in
general and these activities in particular are
well known and accepted by the employees.
Some weak spots in handling knowledge have
been identified. There are some measures and
indicators of the process which are collected
regularly (e.g. time, cost, quality).
Process orientation can and should be seen as an
additional dimens ion within a bundle of possible
dimensions describing a complex KM strategy,
especially for process-oriented organizations. The
framework presented in the next section is
intended to provide the integrat ing basis for the
description of a process-oriented KM strategy.

DIMENSIONS OF PROCESS-ORIENTED
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
In the following a number of strat egic options to
the implementation of KM activities are discussed.
These options make up a framework comprising
six dimen sions which can be used to classify KM
strategies.
Topics/content
KM strategies can be distinguished according to
the knowledge content, the type of knowledge that
is focused. In order to position an organization
against its competitors, the following three cate-
gories of knowledge can be distinguished per area
of competency, or per strategic business unit,
division, product line, function or market position
(see Zack, 1999b, p.133f):
$ Core knowledge: the minimum knowledge com-
monly held by members of an industry; also
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 111
considered the basic industry knowledge bar-
rier to entry.
$ Advanced knowledge: enables an organization to
be competitively viable; competitors may gen-
erally hold about the same level, scope or
quality of knowledge, but knowledge differen-
tiation can take place with competitors holding
specific knowledge.
$ Innovative knowledge: enables an organization to

lead its industry and to significantly differ-
entiate itself from its competitors.
Along these lines a large number of ‘dimen-
sions’ can be disting uished which describe various
types of knowledge. These dimensions are outlined
by pairs (e.g. tacit versus explicit or narrative
versus abstract knowledge, see Table 1 below)
which can be used to describe knowledge pro-
cesses or process steps. These knowledge pro-
cesses are transformations of knowledge of one
type into knowledge of the opposite type of one
and the same pair. In our framework a number of
knowledge dimensions are distinguished with
respect to the corresponding main ‘‘area of
intervention’’ – organization, systems, content etc.
(see e.g. Romhardt, 1997, pp.10ff, Eppler et al.,
1999; Zack, 1999, pp.46).
Target group
KM strategies can also be classified according to
the main target group focused:
$ Employee rank: the strategies differ in which
level of employees is considered as the primary
focus of KM activities: employee – manager –
executive.
$ Employee life cycle: one could imagine special
knowledge-related activities, e.g. starter pack-
ages for KMS, communities specially designed
for newly recruited employees, time reserved
for employees facing retirement to document
lessons learned or to act as a mentor, or for

employees preparing for or immediately after
completing a step in their career.
$ Employee role: the strategies differ in what roles
of employees are focused, e.g. role-specific
packages for KMS, communities linking
employees who are on about the same career
track, like high potentials, functional specialists,
internationals etc.
$ Organizational scope: at least four scopes can be
distinguished (the corresponding technologies
are given in parentheses): core group (work
space) — organization (intranet ) — organiza-
tion and partners (extranet, virtual private
network) — unlimited (Internet-communities).
Instruments and technology
Instruments for knowledge management influence
all levels of intervention, i.e. the underlying
corporate culture, the organizational structure,
roles, processes and the use of information and
communication technologies (ICT). There are lots
of different types of instruments involved in KM-
initiatives, as, for example, yellow pages and skills
directories, expert networks, communities, lessons
learned, best practices, content management (see
Maier, 2002).
As opposed to the content-oriented approach
described above, several authors propose a classi-
fication of technologies supporting KM. Table 1
contains a list of KMS classes. For each of the
classes there are a number of application systems

or tools respectively which are already available
on the market (the list was established by a
theoretical and empirical assessment of currently
available KMS done by one of the authors, see
Maier, 2002, see also Ruggles, 1998, pp.82ff):
$ Knowledge repositories (knowledge element manage-
ment systems; knowledge management suites):
Hyperwave Information Server and Portal,
OpenText Livelink, SAP Knowledge Ware-
house;
$ Knowledge discovery and mapping: e.g. IBM
Intelligent Miner USU Knowledge Miner Data-
prise DataBroker;
$ Knowledge transfer and e-learning: e.g. Hyper-
wave E-Learning Suite, Lotus Learning Space;
$ Meta-search systems: InQuery (Open Text), K2
Enterprise (Verity);
$ Collaboration: e.g., Lotus Notes;
$ Visualization and navigation systems: e.g. Brain,
InXight Correlate K-Map;
$ Community builder: Community Engine (web-
fair);
$ Push-oriented systems: Push Application Server
(Backweb).
These KMS are operated on the basis of an
(organization-wi de) information and communica-
tion infrastructure, in most cases an Intranet-
platform, on which information sharing between
(virtual) teams both within the organization and
across organizat ional boundaries with allies, sup-

pliers and customers is possible. The KM instru-
ments and systems described above can be
classified as follows (see Zack, 1999a, p.50):
$ Integrative knowledge management instruments and
systems focus knowledge as an object as the
primary medium for knowledge exchange and
comprise the following KMS:
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
112 R. Maier and U. Remus
Table 1 Dimensions of process-oriented KM strategies
Strategic dimension/
sub-dimension
Value (examples)
Topics/content
(1) Competiveness
$Core knowledge vs. advanced knowledge vs. innovative knowledge
(2) With respect to the content
of knowledge
$Narrative/concrete vs.
scientific/abstract knowledge
$Universal vs. particular knowledge
(3) With respect to a holder of
knowledge or valuing
$Knowledge valuable for
storing vs. knowledge
not valuable for storing
$Communicable vs. non-communicable
knowledge
$Implicit/tacit vs. explicit
knowledge

$Organization internal vs. organization
external knowledge
$Personalized vs. codified
knowledge
(4) With respect to the
organizational design
$Relevant/authorized/formal/
dominant vs. irrelevant/
not authorized/informal/
minority knowledge
$Knowledge spanning functional areas
vs. knowledge restricted to a
functional area
$Secret/confidential vs. public/
open knowledge
$Focused vs. scattered knowledge
$True/supported vs. false/
unsupported knowledge
$Individual/personal vs. collective/
public knowledge
$Knowledge vs. counter-knowledge
(5) With respect to systems
$Accessible vs. not accessible
knowledge
$Electronic/computer-resident vs. not
electronic/not computer-resident
knowledge
$Codable vs. non-codable
knowledge
(6) With respect to the

knowledge life cycle
$Preserved vs. newly acquired
knowledge
$Knowledge vs. not knowledge
$Existing vs. new knowledge
(7) With respect to business
processes
$Knowledge about the process vs. knowledge within the process vs. knowledge
derived from the process
Participants and communities
(1) Employee rank
$Employee vs. manager vs. executive
(2) Employee life cycle
$Newly recruited employees vs. employees facing retirement vs. Employees on
specific step of careers
(3) Employee role
$Technical expert vs. e.g. insurance:
underwriter, secretary
$Single role vs. multiple roles
(4) Organizational scope
$Core group vs. organization vs. organization and partners vs. unlimited
Instruments and technology
(1) Integrative instruments
$Lessons learned $Content management
$Best practices
(2) Interactive instruments
$Yellow pages $Expert networks
$Skills directories $Communities
(1) Integrative systems
$Knowledge repositories $Meta-search systems

$Knowledge discovery and
mapping
$Visualization and navigation systems
(2) Interactive systems
$Collaboration, knowledge transfer and e-learning
$Push-oriented systems
$Community builder
Culture
(1) Social mechanism for
exchanging knowledge
$Law and order model vs. $Market model vs.
$Family culture model vs. $Discourse model
(2) Degree of sensitivity
of interest
$High vs. low
KM organization and processes
(1) KM structural organization
$Informal initiative $Separate organizational unit
$Project
(2) KM role
$Chief Knowledge Officer/
knowledge manager
$Boundary spanner
$Knowledge broker
$Community manager
$Subject matter specialist
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 113
– Instruments: lessons learned, best practices, con-
tent management;

– Systems: knowledge repositories, knowledge
discovery and mapping, meta-search systems,
visualization and navigation systems;
Interactive knowledge management instruments and
systems primarily support interac tion among
people to facilitate the exchange of tacit knowl-
edge:
– Instruments: yellow pages and skills directories,
expert networks, communities;
– Systems: knowledge transfer and e-learning,
collaboration.
Cultural environment
Certain aspects of organizational culture can
promote or hinder the handling of knowledge in
an organization. A KM strategy, on the one hand,
has to consider the cultural environment in an
organization a nd, on the other hand, the imple-
mentation of a KM strategy will have effects on the
cultural environment (see e.g. von Kr ogh, 1998). A
KM strategy promotes a particular cultural envir-
onment which is thought to be conducive for the
intended KM activities. This can be, for example,
a particular ‘social mechanism for exchanging
knowledge’ (see Geißler, 1999, p.56 f):
$ ‘Law-and-order model’: power, rights and privi-
leges determine the practice of sharing knowl-
edge. The power system in an organization
standardizes the distribution, sharing and
handing-on of knowledge.
$ ‘Family culture model’: the sharing of knowledge

is determined by interpersonal sympathy and
antipathy as well as traditional, unwritten
moral obligations. There are all kinds of group
relations that lead to informal standardization
of knowledge and the way of knowledge
sharing specific to grou ps. This eases sharing
within groups and hinders sharing between
groups.
$ ‘Market model’: knowledge is considered a
resource the value of which is determined
based on supply and demand. It is not the
flows of knowledge that are designed with
respect to their contents, but the framework in
which the market transactions (here: the
exchange of knowledge) take place has to be
guaranteed.
$ ‘Discourse model’: the goal is to achieve ‘objective’
truth, material, normative findings as well as
to achieve consensus about the valuing of these
findings. Knowledge development is based
solely on the power of convincing arguments.
Another factor is the ‘degree of sensitivity of
interest’ (see Frese and Theuvsen, 2000, pp.32ff).
This factor is partly influenced by the organiza-
tional culture, especially the relationship between
the executives and representatives of the employ-
ees or unions respectively and the openness of
the employees towards organizational change and
partly influenced by laws and regulations (e.g.
the German Mitbestimmungsrecht). The two ends

of this factor are (see Frese and Theuvsen, 2000,
p.33):
$ High degree of sensitivity of interest: making a
proactive management of potential conflicts in
the course of change necessary.
$ Low degree of sensitivity of interest: which means
that there is no need for conflict management.
KM strategies have to take into account the
sensitivity as it will strongly affect the success of
KM measures. An example is the willingness to
share knowledge, which can be negatively influ-
enced by a high degree of sensitivity of interest.
Table 1 Continued
Strategic dimension/
sub-dimension
Value (examples)
(3) KM activities
$Knowledge creation vs. $Knowledge distribution vs.
$Knowledge acquisition vs. $Knowledge application vs.
$Knowledge organization vs. $Knowledge evolution vs.
$Knowledge worker/participant$Knowledge formalization vs.
$Knowledge controlling
(4) Knowledge processes
$Content management process $Project debriefing process
$Community management process
(5) Business process focus
$Single process vs. multiple processes vs. all processes
(6) Business process type
$Process complexity $Core, service and management
processes

RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
114 R. Maier and U. Remus
Structural organization and processes
Structurally, a KM initiative can be organized as
a separate organizational unit (competence center
knowledge management, center for business
knowledge), as a project or as an informal initiative
(e.g. a community of employees interested in KM).
In our empirical study, the following KM roles
have been identified (see Maier, 2002):
$ Chief Knowledge Officer/knowledge manager: highest
ranked role in knowledge management, denotes
the head of KM in analogy to the Chief
Information Officer, the head of IT.
$ Knowledge broker: helps participants to locate the
knowledge or experts needed, helps to navigate
the organizational knowledge base.
$ Subject matter specialist: has particular expertise
in one particular area and serves as gatekeeper
of information and knowledge quality assurer,
expert in one or more topics and linking pin to
agencies and research institutions.
$ Boundary spanner: has to network fields of
competencies and broker contacts between
experts in different fields needed to realize
new business ideas.
$ Community manager: responsible for the func-
tioning of the community, has the ‘last word’ in
the set up of policies and norms, e.g. about
participation in the community, its organiza-

tion, about themes and topics, the discussion
style etc.
$ Knowledge worker/participant: all persons that are
affected by KM initiatives. We differentiate
participants from users with respect to the
application of KMS because of their active
involvement in the KMS’s functioning.
KM strategies can also be desc ribed according to
the process focus and the type of business and
knowledge processes supported:
$ Process focus (project focus and starting point):
KM projects can be distinguished according to
the pro cess scope that is focused. The focus on
processes can stretch from a single process over
a number of processes to an organization-wide
perspective, including all relevant business
processes (core and service). Defining a project
starting from operative business processes
instead of knowledge processes is much more
targeted towards the value-creating activities of
an organization because the isolated definition
of knowledge processes is often not practicable
(cf. Bach et al., 1999).
The process focus is dependent on the
starting point of a KM project. Starting with a
single business process may have some advan-
tages concerning the acceptance for further KM
activities for other business processes. ‘Quick
wins’ that show significant improvements of
the handling of knowledge in one business

process are important success factors for the
implementation of organization-wide KM efforts
(cf. Bach et al., 1999, p.30).
$ Type of knowledge process: KM strategies can
address different types of knowledge pro-
cesses (cf. Maula, 2000). The term process is
used in a variety of ways in the context of
KM. Knowledge processes support the flow of
knowledge between business processes and
between business units as well as the (business-
process-independent ) creation and collection of
knowledge. This can be knowledge processes
supporting the collection, processing and stor-
ing of information as an outcome of conven-
tional business processes. An example for a
typical knowledge process would be the pub-
lication of a knowledge element in the corpo-
rate intranet.
There are a number of authors who suggest a
series of activities or a life cycle associated with
KM (see e.g. Nissen et al., 2000, pp.29ff; Probst
et al., 1998, pp.47ff; Davenport and Prusak,
1998; Zack, 1999b). KM life cycle models
basically divide KM into six phases (see
Table 1, see also e.g. Nissen et al., 2000, p.30;
Probst et al., 1998). Thus, a KM strategy can be
characterized by the type of knowledge activi-
ties or processes it (primarily) focuses.
$ Type of business process: The question which
types of processes are promising candidates for

process-oriented KM initiatives is strongly
related to the identification of knowledge-
intensive business processes. Eppler et al. sug-
gest some characteristics describing knowledge
intensity of business processes (see Eppler et al.,
1999 and Davenport et al., 1996, p.55). Within
the group of knowledge-intensive business
processes we can distinguish between simple
and highly complex processes and between
management, core and service processes.
DISCUSSION OF THE DIMENSIONS
Table 1 gives an overview of the framework
showing all dimensions presented in the previous
section together with their sub-dimensions and
examples for possible values along the sub-
dimensions. The framework can be used as a
checklist to detail KM initiatives. The dimensions
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 115
which we included in our framework describe
different levels of analysis. We can distinguish
between dimensions (e.g. KM organization and
processes), sub-dimensions (e.g. KM role, knowledge
process) and values (e.g. ‘knowledge broker’,
‘boundary spanner’, ‘subject matter specialist’).
The dimensions are strongly interdependent (e.g.
KMS support different types of knowledge, colla-
boration tools focus more on the exchange of
implicit knowledge, whereas knowledge reposi-
tories organize codified knowledge.

How does our work relate to the popular
differentiation between personalization and codifi-
cation strategies made by Hansen et al. (1999)? Our
framework can be used to detail these two
strategies using a vertical cut in the sense of a
combination of values for all sub-dimensions of
our framework. Some examples are:
The personalization strategy can be detailed by,
for example, the values ‘implicit knowledge’ and
‘not computer-resident knowledge’ of our dimen-
sion type of knowledge whereas the codification
strategy is focused on the values ‘explicit’ and
‘computer-resident’ knowledge.
In the dimension instruments and technology the
codification strategy can be detailed by the sub-
dimension integrative KMS and the personalization
strategy by the sub-dimension interactive KMS.We
can also assign the values in the sub-dimension
social mechanism for exchanging knowledge (dimen-
sion cultural environment) to the two strategies.
For example the ‘law and order model’ and the
‘market model’ correspond to the codification
strategy, whereas the ‘family culture model’ and
‘discourse model’ are stro ngly related to the
personalization strategy. In the case of process
orientation and type of knowledge process the differ-
entiation in personalization and codification strat-
egy infl uences the design of, for example, the
knowledge processes (e.g. ‘knowledge distribu-
tion’ can be done person-to-person — personaliza-

tion strategy — or via knowledge repositories —
codification strategy).
CONCLUSION
In this paper we have given an overview of
existing approaches to develop KM strategies as
found in the literature. We also reported the
results of an empirical study which showed that
currently KM activities in organizations are linked
neither to a well-defined KM strategy nor directly
to a business strategy. We then analyzed KM
initiatives, activities and efforts with regard to
dimensions that are crucial for the definition of a
complex KM strategy. To integrate the different
dimensions (procedures, starting points and per-
spectives) of these approaches we proposed a
framework where the most important dimensions
were put together.
We then made the case for an additional
dimension: process orientation. The main advan-
tage of a so-called ‘process-oriented KM strategy’
is that it provides an integration of the resource-
based view and the market-oriented view of the
organization. The balancing of the two views is
guided by the concept of strategic knowledge assets
which are developed and man aged by KM activi-
ties. Strategic knowledge assets view core com-
petencies in the light of their application for
products and services that make a difference
visible for the customers (external perspective)
and help to orient the development and manage-

ment of core competencies (internal perspective).
Strategic knowledge assets in turn guide the
design of business processes.
Along wh ich basic lines could an organization
which plans to invest in KM proceed? What
general initiatives can be suggested for KM?
These were the questions we posed at the begin-
ning of our paper. The framework can be seen as
an initial step in answering them. The next steps
will be to use this framework to empirically assess
different KM strategies which have proven to be
successful. Thus, future research should address
the following issues:
$ On the basis of this framework combinations of
values on the dimensions that ‘fit’ together, i.e.
KM strategies that have proven to be successful,
will have to be identified theoretically and
empirically.
$ A procedure describing the application of the
framework has to be developed and empirically
tested.
There are many unresolved research questions
in the area of KM concerning not only KM
strategies but also the organizational design of
KM, usefulness of the content of KM S, architec-
tures and classification of KMS, differences in
design and management betwee n KMS and more
traditional information and communication sys-
tems and, last but not least, the economics of
the application of KMS. Our framework is seen

as an instrument to support both theoretical
and empirical investigations into systematic inter-
ventions in an organization’s way of handling
knowledge.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
116 R. Maier and U. Remus
REFERENCES
Allweyer T. 1999. A framework for redesigning and
managing knowledge processes, Saarbru
¨
cken. http://
www.processworld.com/ content/docs/8.doc/ (last
access: 7/26/2001).
APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center Inter-
national Benchmarking Clearinghouse) (ed.). 1996.
Knowledge Management — Consortium Benchmarking
Study — Best Practice Report. Houston, TX.
Bach V, Vogler P, O
¨
sterle H. 1999. Business-Knowledge-
Management: Praxiserfahrungen mit intranet-basierten
Lo
¨
sungen. Berlin.
Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competi-
tive advantage. Journal of Management 17: No. 1,
99–120.
Bullinger H-J, Wo
¨
rner K, Prieto J. 1997. Wissensmanage-

ment heute. Daten, Fakten, Trends. Fraunhofer Institut
Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation, Stuttgart.
Davenport TH, DeLong DW, Beers MC. 1998. Successful
knowledge management projects. Sloan Management
Review 39: No. 2, Winter, 43–57.
Davenport TH, Jarvenpaa SL, Beers MC. 1996. Improv-
ing knowledge work processes. Sloan Management
Review 37: No. 4, Summer, 53–65.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge.
Harvard Business School Press: Boston MA.
Earl MJ, Scott IA. 1999. Opinion: What Is a Chief
Knowledge Officer? Sloan Management Review 40:
No. 2, Winter, 29–38.
Eppler M, Seifried P, Ro
¨
pnack A. 1999. Improving
knowledge intensive processes through an enterprise
knowledge medium. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM
Conference on Managing Organizational Knowledge for
Strategic Advantage. Prasad J (ed.). New Orleans
(USA), 8–10, April.
Frese E, Theuvsen L. 2000. Organisationsarbeit
als Wissensmanagement. Wettbewerbsvorteile durch
Wissensmanagement — Methodik und Anwen dungen des
Knowledge Management, Krallmann H (ed.). Stuttgart,
13–52.
Geißler H. 1999. Standardisierung und Entstandardis-
ierung von Wissen als Aufgabe von Wissensmanage-
ment. In Organisationslernen durch Wissensmanagement,
Projektgruppe wissenschaftliche Beratung (ed.).

Frankfurt/Main, 39–63.
Grant RM. 1991. The resource-based theory of competi-
tive advantage: implications for strategy formulation.
California Management Review 33: No. 3, 114–135.
Grant RM. 1998. Contemporary Strategy Analysis:
Concepts, Techniques, Applications, 3rd edn. Malden:
Massachusetts.
Hammer H, Champy J. 1993. Reengineering the corpora-
tion. New York.
Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T. 1999. What’s your
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review 77: No. 2, 106–116.
Hess, 1999. (To be supplied).
Holtshouse D. 1998. Knowledge Research Issues.
California Management Review 40: No. 3, 277.
ILOI (Internationales Institut fu
¨
r Lernende Organisation
und Innovation). 1997. Knowledge Management – Ein
empirisch gestu
¨
tzter Leitfaden zum Management des
Produktionsfaktors Wissen. Munich.
Kock NF, McQueen RJ, Corner JL. 1997. The nature
of data, information and knowledge exchanges in
business processes: implications for process improve-
ment and organisational learning. The Learning Orga-
nisation 4: No. 2, 70–80.
von Krogh GF. 1998. Care in Knowledge Creation.
California Management Review 40: No. 3, 133–153.

Lehner F. 2000. Organisational Memory. Konzepte und
Systeme fu
¨
r das organisatorische Lernen und das
Wissensmanagement. Munich.
Leonard-Barton D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigi-
dities: a paradox in managing new product develop-
ment. Strategic Management Journal 13: 111–125.
Maier R. 2002. Knowledge management systems. Infor-
mation and communication technologies for knowl-
edge management. Berlin et al.
Maier R, Lehner F. 2000. Perspectives on knowledge
management systems — theoretical framework and
design of an empirical study. In A Cyberspace Odyssey,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information
Systems – ECIS 2000, Hansen HR, Bichler M, Mahrer H
(eds). Vienna, Austria, 685–693.
Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, Pentland B, Dellarocas
C, Wyner G, Quimby J, Osborn CS, Bernstein A. 1999.
Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook
of organizational processes. Management Science 45:
No. 3, 425–443, />html/
Maula M. 2000. Three parallel knowledge processes.
Journal of Knowledge and Process Management 7: No. 1,
55–59.
Mertins K, Heisig P, Vorbeck J (eds). 2001. Knowledge
Management. Best Practices in Europe. Berlin.
Nissen M, Kamel M, Sengupta K. 2000. Integrated
analysis and design of knowledge systems and
processes. Information Resources Management Journal

13: No. 1, 24–43.
Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for
Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York.
Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance. New York.
Porter ME. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations.
London.
Porter ME. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.
Strategic Management Journal 12: Winter Special Issue,
95–117.
Porter ME. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business
Review 74: No. 5–6, 61–78.
Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of
the corporation. Harvard Business Review 68: No. 5–6,
79–91.
Probst GJ, Raub SP. 1998. Kompetenzorientiertes
Wissensmanagement. Zeitschrift fu
¨
r Organisation 67:
No. 3, 132–137.
Probst G, Raub S, Romhardt K. 1998. Wissen managen:
Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal
nutzen, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden.
Raub SP, Romhardt K. 1998. Interventionen in die
organisatorische Wissensbasis im unternehmensstra-
tegischen Kontext. Zeitschrift fu
¨
r Organisation 67: No. 3,
152–157.
Remus U, Lehner F. 2000. The role of process-oriented

enterprise modeling in designing process-oriented
knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the
AAAI Symposium on Bringing Knowledge to Business
Processes. Stanford, CA, USA, 20–22 March. AAAI
Technical Report, Menlo Park, 30–36.
Romhardt K. 1997. Interventionen in die organisator-
ische Wissensbasis zwischen Theorie und Praxis.
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Process-oriented Knowledge Management Strategies 117
Welchen Beitrag kann die Systemtheorie leisten?
Kaiserslautern />public/ WissenUndSystemtheorie/, last access 7/26/
2001.
Ruggles R. 1998. The state of the notion: knowledge
management in practice. California Management Review
40: No. 3, 80–89.
Scheer A-W. 1998. ARIS – Vom Gescha
¨
ftsprozeß zum
Anwendungssystem, 3rd edn. Berlin.
Schendel D, Hofer CW. 1979. Introduction. In Strategic
Management: A New View of Business Policy and
Planning, Schendel D, Hofer CW (eds). Boston,
Toronto, 1–22.
Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjewierden A, de Hoog R,
Shadbold N, van der Velde W, Wielinga B. 1999.
Knowledge Engineering and Management, The Common-
KADS Methodology. Cambridge.
Scholz R, Vrohlings A. 1994. Prozess-Redesign und
Kontinuieliche Verbesseruge. In: Prozessmanagement-
Konzepte, Umsetzungen und Erfahrungen des Reengineer-

ing. Gaitanides M, Scholz R, Vrohlings A, Raster M
(eds). Vienna, 99–122.
Stabell CB, Fjeldstad OD. 1998. Configuring value for
competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and net-
works. Strategic Management Journal 19: No. 5, 413–437.
To
¨
pfer A. 1997. Kundenorientiertes Gescha
¨
ftsproze-
ßmanagement durch Business Units. Information
Management No. 1: 6–12.
Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal 5: No. 2, 171–180.
Zack MH. 1999a. Managing codified knowledge. Sloan
Management Review 40: No. 4, Summer, 45–58.
Zack MH. 1999b. Developing a knowledge strategy.
California Management Review 41: No. 3, 125–145.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
118 R. Maier and U. Remus