Tài liệu Mechanisms for Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness: An Exploratory Analysis pptx

&
Research Article
Mechanisms for Knowledge
Management Systems Effectiveness:
An Exploratory Analysis
Hind Benbya* and Nassim Aissa Belbaly
e-Business Management School, University of Lecce–ISUFI, Lecce, Italy
Knowledge management systems (KMS) have been implemented in many organizations, yet
little research exists to guide their successful development and implementation in practice. In
fact, while some firms achieve successful outcomes with regard to their IT endeavours, others
continue to fall victim to the technology productivity paradox. Further, little is known about
the diversity of both systems and organizations that have successfully implemented them.
This article, through an analysis of successful case studies of knowledge management systems,
explores the underlying mechanisms under which knowledge management systems effective-
ness is most likely to occur. The findings imply that three categories of mechanisms constitute
important preconditions for knowledge management systems effectiveness; they range from
cultural to structural and managerial mechanisms. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
It has become largely agreed today that organiza-
tional knowledge such as operational routines,
skills or know-how are the most valuable organiza-
tional resources of a firm. This perspective builds
upon and extends the resource-based view (RBV)
of the firm initially promoted by Penrose (1959)
and expanded by others (Barney, 1991; Prahalad
and Hamel, 1990; Teece et al., 1997). The premise
of the RBV is that organizations employ a mix of
acquisition and configuration of resources to
change how their business is accomplished. Knowl-
edge is often the basis for the effective utilization of
many important resources. In this context, informa-

tion and communication technologies may play an
important role in effectuating the knowledge-based
view of the firm by enhancing a firm’s capability to
manage the knowledge it possesses. This aware-
ness is one of the main reasons for the exponential
growth of knowledge management systems (KMS).
KMS are enabling technologies that support knowl-
edge management in organizations (Ruggles, 1997).
There are a number of perspectives on KMS,
and different typologies concerning such systems
have been developed in the literature. In fact, while
Hansen et al. (1999) distinguish them under the
personalization/codification perspective, Ruggles
(1997) classifies them according to the knowledge
management process they support. While this
growing literature is a good indication of the
importance of such systems for both theory and
practice, little research exists to guide their success-
ful development and implementation in practice
(Alavi and Leidner, 1999). In fact, while some firms
achieve successful outcomes with regard to their IT
endeavours, others continue to fall victim to the
technology productivity paradox. Further, little is
known about the diversity of both systems and
organizations that have successfully implemented
KMS. To address these issues, the current study
Knowledge and Process Management Volume 12 Number 3 pp 203–216 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.231
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: Hind Benbya, e-Business Management

School, University of Lecce–ISUFI, Via per Monteroni sn 73100
Lecce, Italy.
E-mail:
reports the result from a multiple case study of
KMS. In particular, this article has two main objec-
tives. The first is to show through examples the role
and practical applications of KMS. The second is to
analyse how some companies succeeded in deploy-
ing KMS, in particular with regard to the mechan-
isms they deployed to achieve succe ss. The paper is
organized as follows. The first section presents a
short overview of previous literature concerning
KMS. In the second section the research methodol-
ogy will be explained, while the third section dis-
cusses our main findings concerning KMS types
in practice and mechanisms for success. Finally
we present the conclusions and indicate future
research issues.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
KMS origins and definitions
Traditionally, most research in strategic IT has
focused on the ability of IT to add economic
value to a firm either by reducing a firm’s costs
or by differentiating its products and services. A
principal argument in this line of reasoning is
that the competitive use of IT has the potential to
provide sustainability and competitive advantage
(Kettinger et al., 1994; Clemons, 1991). As knowl-
edge is often the basis for the effective use of a
firm’s resources, a new line of IT-based systems

to support organizational knowledge management
has emer ged called knowledge management sys-
tems. KMS have been defined as a line of systems
which target professional and managerial activities
by focusing on creating, gathering, organizing and
disseminating an organization’s ‘knowledge’ as
opposed to ‘information’ or ‘data’ (Becerra-
Fernandez, 2000). The development of KMS
demands that knowledge be obtained, produced,
shared, regu lated and leveraged by a steady con-
glomeration of individuals, processes and IT but
still to be effective KMS should fit the overall orga-
nizational culture and structure. The first and early
adopters of KMS have been large consulting com-
panies; today, such systems are used in a variety
of areas such as medicine, engineering, product
design and construction (Hendriks and Vriens,
1999; Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Tiwana and
Ramesh, 2000).
KMS design finds its origins in knowledge-based
systems and information systems which are mainly
used in intranet development and business process
re-engineering. These techniques rely heavily on
business process modelling, which allows the cap-
ture of the significant flows, events, inputs,
resources and outputs associated with business
processes. Taking into account that the goal of pro-
cess modelling is to reach a common und erstand-
ing about how activities should be carried out
(e.g. in which order) and what it produces, it has

become largely agreed that knowledge manage-
ment activities should be integrated within day-
to-day business processes to ensure continual
process improvement and facilitate learning and
the gradual development of organizational
memory. The main approaches that have tried to
develop a systematic method to integrate knowl-
edge management into business processes are the
common KADS methodology (see Schreiber et al.,
1999), the knowledge value chain approach
(Weggeman, 1998), model-based knowledge
management (Allweyer and Loos, 1998) and the
model-based design of knowledge-oriented pro-
cesses. Furthermore, research indicates that compa-
nies focus on specific business proces ses to
implement knowledge management (Mertins et al.,
2001). In particular, organizations try to sustain
their core processes which represent the co re com-
petence and most important capability of the firm
(e.g. aerospace organizations start their initiatives
focusing on the design and R&D process). Nissen
et al. (2000) suggest that the first stage of knowledge
system design involves process analysis; in fact,
until one understands the process, with its various
opportunities and required knowledge, it makes
little sense to begin designing systems. Therefore,
business processes determine the underlying KMS
because they use all the flows necessary to repro-
duce the real working of the business processes
(Figure 1).

KMS taxonomy
There are a number of perspectives on KMS, and
different typologies concerning such systems have
been developed in the literature. In fact, a first
approach to providing a taxonomy of KMS is to
distinguish them by where knowledge resides
and the extent to which knowledge is structured
(Hahn and Subramani, 2002). Becerra-Fernandez
(2000) also provides a classification of KMS in
terms of knowledge dimensions (tacit/explicit)
and the extent of codifiability they require. These
two classifications are an extension of the taxon-
omy proposed by Hansen et al. (1999), which distin-
guish mainly between two strategies: codification
versus personalization strategy. While the codifica-
tion strategy relies extensively on codifying and
storing knowledge in databases, the per sonaliza-
tion strategy focuses on the tacit dimension of
knowledge and invests in networks to facilitate
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
204 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
knowledge exchange via person-to-person con-
tacts. Another taxonomy of KMS differentiates
them according to the knowledge management
process they mainly support (creation, storage,
transfer and application) (Alavi and Leidner,
2001; Ruggles, 1997; Tiwana and Ramesh, 2000.
However, the main important distinction between
the various KMS that exist remains the one that dis-
tinguishes between the tacit versus explicit dimen-

sion of knowledge. Accordingly, following this
articulation of knowledge in tacit versus explicit
dimensions, KMS can be classified into three cate-
gories: dynamic systems, process-oriented systems
and integrative systems (Figure 2).
Dynamic knowledge management systems
Dynamic KMS support mainly interactive commu-
nications between experts or team-based manage-
ment and are consequently more concerned about
the tacit dimension of knowledge. This category
includes:
 expertise location or what’s called ‘yellow pages’
or ‘people finder’ that capture and inventory the
knowledge, experience and backgrounds of the
firm’s experts and act as connectors between
knowledge and expertise seekers and holders;
 communities of practice that provide a social for-
um to groups of people who share a concern, a
set of problems and who deepen their knowl-
edge and expertise in this area by interacting
on an ongoing basis (Wenger et al., 2002).
Process-oriented knowledge management systems
Organizations with significant intellectual capital
require eliciting and capturing knowledge for
reuse in new prob lems as well as recurring old pro-
blems. They focus mainly on the technical side of
Core processes
Value Creation
Information systems Knowledge-based systems
Knowledge management systems

Figure 1 Knowledge management systems foundations
KMS
Dynamic systems
Process oriented systems
Integrated systems
Locate knowledge
carriers and seekers
- Create a social forum
- Access to experts
- Support cross functional
teams
- provide cross- skills set
for projects
- Expert networks
- communities of practice
- Yellow pages
- Best practices
- Process descriptions
databases
- Knowledge repositories
- Corporate portal
- Extranet portals
- Intranet portals
- Capture knowledge for reuse
in solving recurring problems
- Improve processes
- Integrate knowledge
Source and provide a
Single point of access
Class Objective Example

Figure 2 Knowledge management systems classification and examples
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 205
knowledge and can be an important support for
new product development (e.g. a system to store
marketing-oriented documents or more focused
on R&D). These systems include lessons learned
systems, processes description databases, knowl-
edge repositories and best practices databases.
Integrative knowledge management systems
While the preceding KMS categories focused
mainly on one dimension of knowledge over the
other—either tacit knowledge in the case of expert
networks and communities of practice or more
explicit knowledge focused in the case of codifica-
tion systems in databases—today, most contem-
porary approaches to KMS design rely on an
integrative perspective on managing both explicit
and tacit knowledge dimensions because it offers
unrestricted possibilities for uniformly accessing
knowledge across a variety of sources. This is the
case for the corporate portal which integrates dif-
ferent applications from collaboration tools to a
database supporting knowledge embedded within
business processes (Benbya et al., 2004).
KMS effectiveness
The benefits of using KMS are high because they
include the ability of organizations to be flexible
and to respond more quickly to changing market
conditions, and the ability to be more innovative

as well as improve decision making and productiv-
ity (Harris, 1996). Some authors provided empirical
evidence based on qualitative cases with regard to
the performance implications of KMS (Hansen et al.,
1999; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Szulanski,
2000). In particular, KMS are expected to contribute
to the competitive advantage of companies by sup-
porting and enhancing organizational knowledge.
For example, KMS foster the systematic identifica-
tion of central knowledge and expertise, encourage
converting knowledge into manifest forms (e.g.
explicit knowled ge) and make information accessi-
ble to others in the firm for local use in terms of
knowledge reuse and as input for knowledge
development. Thus, KMS may ease the integration
of dispersed knowledge (Grant, 1996), speed up the
replication of best practices across time and place
(Nelson and Winter, 1982), avoid double invention,
facilitate leveraging across uses and users (Quinn,
1992; Quinn et al., 1996) and reduce costs of search-
ing and transforming available knowledge for local
use (Hedlund, 1994). While potential ben efits of
KMS have been addressed theoretically in the lit-
erature, less is known about how these can be rea-
lized in practice . Significant failure rates persist
despite tremendous improvements in sophistica-
tion of technologies and majo r gains in related
price–performance ratios. These conflicting results
may be attributable to: (1) incomplete or inap-
propriate measures of success; (2) lack of theoreti-

cal grounding of the causal mechanisms of KMS
success; or (3) myopic focus on financial perfor-
mance indicators.
In light of the above motivations, in this section
we will review the literature related to these issues,
with a particular focus on the measures used to
assess the effectiveness of KMS.
Several perspectives deal with the assessment of
KMS (Lindsey, 2002; Jennex and Olfman, 2004).
One approach is whether these systems perform
knowledge management processes effectively,
and consequently if each step of the knowledge
process is performed well the system reaches its
objectives. Other authors also take into considera-
tion the organizational context as they recognize
that knowledge management is an organizational
change process and that its success could not be
separate from organizational change success.
This is the case for Lindsey, who defines knowl-
edge management effectiveness/success in terms
of two main constructs: knowledge infrastructure
capability and knowledge process capability.
Knowledge infrastructure cap ability represents
social capital; the relationships between knowledge
sources and users; and is operationalized by tech-
nology (the network itself), structure (the relation-
ship) and culture (the context in which the
knowledge is created and used). Knowledge pro-
cess capability represents the integration of KM
processes into the organization, and is operationa-

lized by acquisition (the capturing of knowledge),
conversion (making captured knowledge avail-
able), application (degree to which knowledge is
useful) and protection (security of knowledge).
Jennex and Olfman (2004) propose a model for
KMS success based on the Delone and Mclean IS
success model. The proposed model on KMS suc-
cess evaluates as an improvement in organizational
effectiveness based on the use of and impacts from
the KMS. The model uses the following dimensions
to measure KMS success:
 System quality. Defines how well the KMS per-
forms the functions of knowledge man agement
(creation, transfer, storage ).
 Knowledge/information quality. Ensures that the
right knowledge with sufficient context is cap-
tured and available for the right use at the right
time.
 Use/user satisfaction. Reflects actual levels of KMS
use as well as the satisfaction of KMS users.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
206 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
 Perceived benefits. Measure perceptions of the ben-
efits and impacts of the KMS by users and is
based on the perceived benefit model.
 Net impact. An individual’s use of a KMS will
produce an impact on that person’s performance
in the workplace.
KMS and IT in general can only add value to an
organization when they are used, and that value to

individuals arises when use of the knowledge in
the KMS enables them to perform their work in
ways that are more efficient, more effective and/
or more satisfying. In this article we define the
effectiveness of KMS as a value judgment made
by its users and wh ich allows organizations to
accomplish more efficiently what it could not any
other way. We distinguish between the contex t in
which the system is used and its related outcomes.
We refer to the factors a cting on KMS effectiveness
as mechanisms.
The study of published reports on KMS has iden-
tified a number of mechanisms for KMS effective-
ness. The results of the studies summarized in
Table 1 show that they can be clustered into three
groups: structural, cultural and managerial. First is
the emphasis by so many on the importance of
structural mechanisms that incorporate all the
functional elemen ts of the company that support
and facilitate knowledge management, such as a
dedicated structure, rules and routines. Second is
the frequent me ntion that an organizational culture
of knowledge sharing is a correlate of success.
Third is the prevalent, though not universal, use
of incentives to change behaviour and encourage
system usage.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This research was undertaken through a multiple
case study (Yin, 1994). In gathering the data,
standard techniques for conducting qualitative

case study research were followed (Yin, 1994). In
the first stage, qualitative research was carried
out with the objective of gaining an in-depth
understanding on knowledge management sys-
tems and the mechanisms identified from previous
research. The mechanisms identified from the lit-
erature and classified as structural, cultural or man-
agerial, on the one hand, and the classification of
KMS as dynamic, process-oriented and integrative
on the other, were also found significant in the
substantial number of surveys about knowledge
management (KM) reported in the literature (e.g.
APQC, 1996; KPMG, 1998; Heisig et al., 2002).
These surveys, together with an abundance of
case studies, give an initial overview of the state
of practice of KM and in particular addresses
KMS types adopted by some organizations and
the conditions that were conducive to success. To
further our exploration on KMS types, main bene-
fits and mechanisms, we studied the 20 multina-
tional organi zations that were selected for the
2003 ‘MAKE’ (Most Admired Knowledge Enter-
prises) study as best practices.
These organizations are, according to MAKE,
‘leaders in effectively transforming enterprise
knowledge into wealth creating ideas, products
and solutions. They are building portfolios of intel-
lectual capital and intangible assets which will
enable them to out-perform their competitors in
the future.’ The classification of these best practices

is based on a Delphi methodology, where a panel
of experts on KM validated the results.
Table 2 summaries the industry sectors repre-
sented and the types of systems that these organi-
zations deployed.
Thematic analysis of the research find ings of the
first phase, together with the analysis of published
documentation and the information provided by
these companies on their initiatives, served to
Table 1 Example of mechanisms studied that affect KMS effectiveness
Source Cultural mechanisms Structural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms
studied studied studied
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) — — Reward systems
Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) Organizational culture — —
Argote et al. (2003) Social relations person– Organizational boundaries Rewards and incentives
organization fit Rules and routines
McEvily et al. (2003) Level of trust — —
Gold et al. (2001) Organizational culture Structure Management support
Mofett et al. (2002) Organizational climate Knowledge roles —
Connelly and Kelloway Social interaction culture — Perception of management’s
(2003) support
Mason (2003) Organizational culture — —
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 207
confirm the taxonomy of KMS proposed in the arti-
cle and to confirm the classification of mechanisms
that these organizations deployed in three groups
(cultural, structural and managerial).
The second phase consisted of an in-depth analy-
sis of four organizations from the above for further

investigation; these were Siemens, Buckman
Laboratories, Xerox and Shell. These organizations
have been selected consecutively by the MAKE
study as best practices for 3 years; they belong to
different industries and have adopted different
types of KMS. Another selection criterion related
to the effectiveness of the KMS deployed in these
organizations that are, according to their managers,
not only fully used within their organizations but
also allow their users to accomplish better what
they could not otherwise.
This analysis fulfils a dual function in assessing
the mechanisms that constitute preconditions of
KMS effectiveness in organizations, as well as
forming the basis for the development of a concep-
tual model of ‘Mechanisms for KMS effectiveness’
to be tested empirically in the third phase of the
project.
Within this context, the qualitative analysis of the
cases is aimed at answering the following research
questions:
 What were the main functionalities of the used
KMS?
 What were the main benefits they achieved from
their KMS?
 What, according to them, are the main mechan-
isms (cultural, structural and managerial) that
contributed to achieving the fo remost benefits?
 What measurement systems are they using to
assess these benefits?

The major method of data collection was based
on semi-structured interviews; in fact, the themes
above were explored with a series of key informant
interviews involved in the different initiatives.
In addition to the interview data, researchers
have collected and analysed a variety of company
documentation, which included: conference pre-
sentations and papers developed by their own
employees and with other researchers, and describ-
ing their main KM initiatives; internally circulated
manuals for KMS user s; reports and statistics on
their use and participation levels.
From the data collected on KMS under investiga-
tion in this study, many comparisons and contrasts
can be made. They are detailed in terms of KMS
types and characteristics (Table 2) and in terms of
mechanisms (cultural, structural and managerial)
used to achieve success and benefits date (Table 3).
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
KMS types
The majority of the cases studied were concerned
with, bridging the gap between explicit versus tacit
knowledge. Personalized knowledge, bound to the
Table 2 Knowledge management initiatives deployed by best practices organizations
Organizations Industry KMS type
Accenture Consulting Integrative solution (best practices, experts .)
Amazon.com Shopping site Integrative solution ( best books, experts )
BP Oil and gas Knowledge repositories
Buckman Laboratories Chemicals Interactive networks (forums, case history )
Canon Networking and imaging technology Extranet portal ( CRM, SCM system)

Ernest & Young Professional services Integrative solution (best practices, experts .)
General Electric Diversified Knowledge repositories
Hewlett Packard High technology Corporate portal
Infosys Technologies Software consulting and IT services Interactive networks
IBM Computers and office equipment Corporate portal
McKinsey & Company Consulting Intranet knowledge portal
Microsoft Computer software Communities of practice
Nokia Mobile communications Knowledge repositories
Price waterhouse Coopers Consulting Integrative solution (best practices, experts )
Royal Dutch/Shell Energy company (oil, gas, solar) Distributed teams and communities
Siemens Diversified Integrated solution (sales documents, forums)
3M Analogue devices Knowledge repositories
Toyota Motor Automobile Best practices database
World Bank Bank Communities of practice
Xerox Computer and office equipment Best practices database (technical tips)
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
208 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Table 3 Summary results of the best practices analyzed
Siemens case study
ShareNet Description of the system
ShareNet is a global knowledge database that links the salespeople of Siemens Information and Communication
Networks (ICN) worldwide, making each salesperson’s accumulated learning experiences accessible to the entire sales force.
Main functionalities
 Customer solutions with their accompanying sales arguments, descriptions of successful projects, presentations, relevant
business plan
 Contact persons for technical issues and financial concepts
 Chat rooms, community news, discussion groups on special issues and urgent requests
 Sections: market knowledge, competitor knowledge, technology knowledge, complementor knowledge,
customer knowledge
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits

 New organizational positions and
roles were appointed to support
the initiative
 ShareNet Committee: highest
decision body for the future
development of ShareNet including
the CEO, which act as facilitators
and trainers ensuring the roll-out
 Global editors: they act as
mechanisms for making knowledge
richer, more general and reusable
 ShareNet managers: support
contributors in capturing the
project experiences and marketing
know-how; drive the development
of reusable knowledge
 Promoters of ShareNet worked
hard to spread messages
encouraging knowledge sharing
and reuse and to create a culture
conductive to knowledge sharing
 Another concern was to develop
empowerment instead of strong
hierarchy that naturally directed
responsibility towards the top
Leadership
 Management support along
the initiative through signals to
channel organizational resources
and individual commitment

towards this element was
important in making global
knowledge sharing happen
 Management helped to
communicate the idea of ShareNet
across organizational levels and
functional departments to ensure
its added value was understood and
appreciated
Reward system
 Contributing and reusing knowledge
is rewarded by ShareNet ‘shares’.
Depending on the number of shares
accumulated during a year, employees
are rewarded with several incentives,
such as conference participation or
telecommunications equipment
 The number of shares given to the
contributor depends on the reuse
feedback of the taker of knowledge,
thus rewarding the usefulness of the
transferred knowledge
 The feedback mechanism is an
important part of the quality
assurance system too
 The savings of costs. e.g. by reusing
knowledge on how to simplify
processes
 Increased revenues, e.g. by increasing
the quality of tenders by reusing

knowledge of the success factors of
tenders, or by simply being faster than
the competition by reusing documents
 The alignment with customer needs, by
recognizing important trends and
developments worldwide
Continues
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 209
Table 3 Continued
Buckman Laboratories case study
K’Netix Description of the system
K’Netix is the Buckman knowledge network for help answering very specific questions. The heart of the system was its forums.
The majority of them aim at improving customer productivity and are organized by business area
Main functionalities
 Customer information centre: Buckman’s customers, internal memos, documents and sales orders
 Tech forums, each with its own message board, a conference room to facilitate debate and a library section where the
communication threads and other pertinent knowledge would be stored
 Case history, product data sheet, technical library
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
 New organizational positions
and roles were appointed to
support the initiative
 Knowledge transfer department
which aims at planning,
organizing and managing
information system applications
and associated resources
to respond to the information
and knowledge needs of

Buckman Laboratories worldwide
 Systems operators (Sysops) were
appointed to monitor the
discussions in the forums, track
requests and make sure they
were answered
 Sysops would try to get answers
in 24 hours; if not they would
contact people directly and ask
them to respond. Additionally
they were to give positive
feedback to those who did respond
 Content experts, two industry
experts or section leaders in each
forum were assigned to provide a
measure of quality assurance
regarding the advice given by
others
 A code of ethics was created to
act as a glue to hold the company
together and provide the basis
for the respect and trust necessary
in a knowledge-sharing environment
 Another concern was to develop
empowerment instead of strong
hierarchy that naturally directed
responsibility towards the top
Leadership
 Management support for the
initiative by triggering personnel

through messages and enticements
was clear: ‘Those of you who have
something intelligent to say now
have a forum in which to say it.
Those of you who will not or cannot
contribute also become obvious.
If you are not willing to contribute or
participate, you should understand that
the many opportunities offered to you in
the past will no longer be available’
Motivation and incentives
 Employees were encouraged to use the
system in a relaxed atmosphere, such as
from their homes
 When the marketing department reviewed
and accepted a ‘case history’ submission,
the submitting sales associate received
$100, which was raised later to $200
 Selection of ‘the 150’ best knowledge
sharers were invited to a fashionable
resort
 Increase of sales from new products
 Increase the speed of response to
customers’ needs
 Increase customer intimacy and meet
customer requirements
 Increase customer satisfaction
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
210 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Shell case study

Wells global network Description of the system
Wells global network includes technical networks and communities centred around commercial practice, procurement,
benchmarking, competitive intelligence and knowledge sharing
Main functionalities
 Expertise directory, global consultants, global networks, centres of excellence
 Standards procedures, policies, best practices, discussions with peers and colleagues
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
 New organizational positions
and roles were appointed to
support the initiative
 Global coordinator (community
builder, energizer, ambassador,
chaser)
 Facilitator (experienced in
kicking off new networks)
 The organizational performance
and learning team helped
restructure, reinvigorate and
expand the computer-based
global networks
 Promotion of a spirit built on
friendship and a genuine desire
to help each other, sharing a
sense of pride in work and
having fun
 Trusted relationships and
confidence that comes from a
community with common values
and a common story about their
history, however short

Reward system
 Curiosity and gaining recognition
from peers are the main motivators
for participation
 ‘Appearing in the Expertise
Directory, is the confirmation of
an individual’s credentials to
perform the service which has been
brokered by a more personal contact’
 Interest in solving specific problems, share
feedback and experience
 Facilitates the sharing of lessons learned,
and helps avoid repeating the same
mistakes or reinventing the wheel
 Cost savings
 Be able to provide timely cost-effective
advice which proved to be of particular
benefit during the development of various
front-end philosophy documents
 Allows more optimal allocation of
resources without physical relocation
 Provides access to expertise beyond
current establishment
 Gain quick, informative responses and
clear practical advice and experience
Xerox case study
Eureka Description of the system
Eureka is a community-based knowledge-sharing solution for customer service engineers through tips and best practices
contributed by the service technicians themselves and available to customer service technicians worldwide
Main functionalities

 Submission of a tip (context of the problem and the solution that was developed)
 Evaluation and validation within 14 days
 Database maintenance was everyone’s responsibility through votes and feedback
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
 New organizational positions
and roles were appointed to
support the initiative
 Appointment of someone in
the strategy office to the position
of Director of Corporate strategy
and knowledge Initiatives
 Sharing is voluntary; however,
the organization focused on the
opportunities to create growth
and the proactive sharing of best
practices through empowering
people
Leadership
 Management support is key for the
success of any a initiative: ‘In some
locations the managers took the time towork
with the teams and developed and showed
them video testimonials from
 Improvement of employees’ satisfaction as
it made engineers’ job easier and quicker
and allowed Xerox to create intellectual
capital and social capital at the same time
 Improving service to customers and
financial performance of the business
through:

Continues
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 211
individual mind, is difficult to articulate and can-
not be transferred easily. Knowledge codified in
databases, manuals and project debriefings, how-
ever, can be transferred with relative ease. Yet
both are needed to make true knowledge sharing
happen. Tacit knowledge is usually transferred by
people exchanging knowledge through social inter-
action, e.g. during meetings, videoconferences or in
discussion groups. Transferring codified knowl-
edge by means of a codification strategy is realized
by capturing and storing knowledge in documents
and transferring it via databases or similar means.
In fact, in their preliminary stage, organizations
used knowledge repositories where knowledge is
codified without contextual information. Specialists
were assigned to remove the context of the source
material to make them more generally applicable;
in doing this, knowledge loses its meaning.
Furthermore, people often did not find answers to
their questions in these repositories. Therefore, we
believe that contextual information should be
included in a knowledge rep ository and both types
of knowledge have to be transferred to make true
knowledge sharing happen. In the case of Siemens
bridging this gap was even considered as a dilem-
ma since an overemphasis on codified knowledge
can miss out on important tacit elemen ts that con-

stitute an integral component of the added value
that solution selling provides. Consequently, Sie -
mens based its approach on an interactive solution
that starts with informal discussions through ques-
tions and answers that, once mature enough,
become documented as a ‘case history’; this is the
approach used also by Buckman Laboratories to
update knowledge within the system. Shell, on
the other hand started with a codification strategy.
The organization spent millions building databases
of detailed technical documents; the problem, how-
ever, was that nobody searched them and they
were quickly out of date. Consequently, Shell aban-
doned this approach and now focuses on e-learn-
ing packages that deliver a mix of standards and
a connection to a global network.
KMS mechanisms for success
Cultural mechanisms
Organizational cultures are central to knowledge
creation, sharing and use and they are increasingly
recognized as a major barrier to leveraging intellec-
tual assets (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gordon and
Di Tomaso, 1992). Several scholars and consultants
(Davenport and Pru sak, 1998) have argued that
creating a culture that values creativity, continuous
improvement and the sharing of ideas is necessary
Table 3 Continued
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
 A community of champions
supporting KM initiatives

 Involving research laboratories
 Validators were responsible for
checking duplicates and outdated
tips
 Cultural barriers in the transfer
of KM initiatives across national
boundaries still exist
other individuals. In these teams there
was good deployment and high usage of
Eureka. In other places it was less
successful because the managers did
not make Eureka a priority and the
engineers just installed the software on
their laptop but did not use it the
same way
Motivation and incentives
 Being recognized as the subject matter
expert is what gives participants credit
and status in their community’
— savings costs in engineer’s time (5%)
— reduction in the length of repair time
(5%)
— increased customer satisfaction and
retention
Measurement
 Number of available solutions in the
database
 Number of created field tips
 Time it takes to validate tips
 Number of problems solved via

Eureka
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
212 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
for knowledge management initiatives to succeed.
However, despite increased research interest and
industry discussion on organizational culture and
its criticality for knowledge management, there is
no consensus about what exactly the term means.
Considerable agreement and overlap do exist, how-
ever, regarding the key elements and dimensions of
organizational culture; they include shared mean-
ings, norms, values and beliefs (Denison, 1996).
Organizations do not possess values apart from
the values of their members. Thus, an organiza-
tional value system (or culture) is said to exist
when (1) individuals know that group support for
a given belief exists, (2) a majority of active mem-
bers are in agreement, and (3) the core values of
an organization are intensely held throughout the
organization (Chatman, 1991). Furthermore, cul-
ture has turned out to be a subtle and often diffi-
cult-to-manage phenomenon because of its
dynamic interaction with basic organizational pro-
cesses such as communications, decision making,
change and power and therefore its potential to
facilitate and/or inhibit the adoption of new tech-
nologies (Schein, 1985). In the case of Shell, we
have seen how the promotion of a spirit built on
friendship and a genuine desire to help each other
and sharing a sense of pride supported effective

knowledge sharing in general and commun ities in
particular. Trusted relationships and the confi-
dence that comes from a community with common
values and a common story was the glue that con-
nected teams from dispersed geographical loca-
tions in solving specific problems, sharing
feedback and experience. Organizational culture
is hard to change, however, as outlined by
Davenport and Prusak (1998); a culturally led
change programme must be embraced for KM suc-
cess. In the case of Buckman Laboratories the CEO
embarked on a process to shift the company to a
culture of openness and knowledge sharing that
focused not on products but on problem solving
for customers. Although this company continues
to develop new emphases and projects, establish-
ing a knowledge-sharing culture remains both a
lodestone and a challenge.
Structural mechanisms
Despite their structural differences, the cases ana-
lysed deployed similar mechanisms to support
the initiative. In fact, new organizational positions
and roles were assigned and ranged from appoint-
ing a steering committee to the implementation of a
separate organizational unit responsible for knowl-
edge management, such as the ‘Knowledge transfer
department’ in Buckman Laboratories. In other
cases, e.g. Shell, the overall initiative was the
responsibility of an existing unit, ‘the organiza-
tional performance and learning team’, which

helped restructure, reinvigorate and expand com-
puter-based global networks. The steering commit-
tee, in some cases supported by the CEO, was
responsible for:
 design and implementation of an initiative
aligned with organizational objectives;
 management of supported resources and
enabling factors such as motivation and enabling
culture.
Another structural mechanism which played a
crucial role in the success of the overall initiative
was the establishment of a key position named
‘Systems operators’ in the case of Siemens and
Buckman, who were responsible for the coordina-
tion of knowledge sharing and acquisition within
the business units. They act as change agents for
the organization as they track requests and make
sure that they are answered. If necessary, they con-
tact people directly and ask them to respond. Addi-
tionally, they act as cheerleaders, giving positive
feedback to those who do respond. Finally, content
experts or editors were responsible for the quality
and update of knowledge within the systems. In
the case of communities of practice, new roles
were assigned to support communities, such as
the global coordinator, who is responsible for the
community, provides budgets and support for
time, travel and technologies, or the community
facilitator, who encourages and moderates
discussions.

Managerial mechanisms
Management support to the overall initiative is
critical for its success. If management spends a
significant amount of resources on either purchas-
ing or developing and implementing such techno-
logy, employees could interpret this as a signal
of management’s support for this ideal and act
accordingly. However, as Martinsons (1993)
acknowledges, if employees perceive that manage-
ment is not very committed to implementing this
new technology, then the initiative to promote a
strong knowledge-sharing culture is not likely to
be successful. This has been clearly seen in Xerox,
where the system has been successful in some loca-
tions while in others the same technology has not
been successful: ‘In some locations the managers
took the time to work with the teams and devel-
oped and showed them video testimonials from
other individuals. In these teams there was good
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 213
deployment and high usage of Eureka. In other
places it was less successful because the managers
did not make Eureka a priority and the engineers
just installed the software on their laptop but did
not use it the same way.’
The CEO at Buckman Laboratories champions
the cause for KM within the organization and per-
sonally reviews submissions to its knowledge
bank. When he notices that a particular employee

has not had been active within the system, he sends
a message that reads: ‘Dear associate, you haven’t
been sharing your knowledge. How can I help
you? All the best, Bob.’ Rewards varied from one
organization to another and depended mainly on
the cultural norms in an organization or group.
At Buckman, best knowledge sharers held presen-
tations at fashionable resorts, with attention and
recognition from peers offered as inducements for
the winning teams. In the case of Siemens, contri-
butors were rewarded by ShareNet ‘shares’.
Depending on the number of shares accumulated
during a year, employees were rewarded with
several incentives, such as conference partici-
pation or telecommunication equipment. In other
cases, the motivation of employees to the knowl-
edge base was mainly based on gaining recogni-
tion from peers, as in the case of Shell or Xerox.
The participation in this case is mainly driven by
their own interest and enjoyment to extend and
exercise one’s capabilities. In the case of Xerox,
‘Being recognized as the subject matter expert is what
gives to the participants credit and status in their
community.’
Wenger et al. (2002) observe that rewarding
‘voluntary’ behavio ur poses a dilemma: ‘How do
we encourage behaviour through extrinsic means
when the intrinsic motivation for such behaviour
is considered a matter of pride and identity?’ For
similar contexts, they observe that: (1) a recognition

by peers, not financial rewards, is the primary
motivator for community participation; and (2)
people who contribute regularly to a community
often want their contributions to be recognized by
the organization.
We believe that finding the right balance
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is key in
motivating employees to participate in the knowl-
edge base.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Knowledge management systems (KMS ) have been
the subject of considerable interest by academics
and practitioners over the past decade, yet little
cumulative research has been conducted to estab-
lish the mechanisms under which KMS effective-
ness is most likely to occur. In this research, we
attempt to classify the mechanisms used by some
organizations to reach success through KMS. In
particular, three categories of mechanisms were
identified: structural, cultural and managerial. Sev-
eral possibilities for future research emerge from
the results of the current study. First, the current
study was exploratory in nature and focused on a
limited number of cases. We hope in further
research to develop an integrative framework of
these mechanisms which will allow us to measure
their relative influence on firm per formance. In fact,
the implications for value creation through KMS
remains largely claimed rather than empirically
corroborated; future research should therefore con-

sider this issue.
Future research should also consider motiva-
tional factors; professionals and managers are
increasingly recognizing that motivation is a criti-
cal success factor for the implementation of enter-
prise knowledge management systems. However,
managers are still struggling to find the right incen-
tives or the right mix of incentives to support
knowledge sharing. Preliminary results suggest,
however, that these motivational factors are context
dependent and, consequently, organizational cli-
mate plays a critical role. Therefore, despite exten-
sive literature on knowledge management in recent
years, there are still critical research gaps that have
significant implications for research and practice in
knowledge management.
REFERENCES
Alavi M, Leidner DE. 1999. Knowledge management sys-
tems: Issues, challenges and benefits. C AIS 1(7): 2–36.
Alavi M, Leidner DE. 2001. Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: conceptual founda-
tions and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1): 107–
136.
Alavi M, Tiwana A. 2002. Knowledge integration in
virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 53(12): 1029–1037.
Allweyer T, Loos P. 1998. Process orientation in UML
through integration of event-driven process chains. In
UML’98: Beyond the Notation—International Workshop

(Preliminary Proceedings).
APQC. 1996. Knowledge Management: A cross industry
benchmarking study. American Productivity and
Quality Center, Houston. APQC website: www.apqc.
com
Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R. 2003. Managing knowl-
edge in organizations: an integrative framework and
review of emerging themes. Management Sciences
49(4): 571–582.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
214 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained compe-
titive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–
120.
Bartol KM, Abhishek S. 2002. Encouraging knowledge
sharing: the role of organizational reward system.
Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9(1):
64–76.
Bassellier G, Reich B, Benbasat I. 2001. Information tech-
nology competence of business managers: a definition
and research model. Journal of Management Information
Systems 17(4): 159–182.
Becerra-Fernandez I. 2000. Facilitating the online search
of experts at NASA using expert seeker people-finder.
PAKM.
Benbya H, Passiante G, Belbaly N. 2004. Corporate por-
tal: a tool for knowledge management synchronization.
International Journal of Information Management 24(3):
201–220.
Chatman JA. 1991. Matching people and organiza-

tions: selection and socialization in public accounting
firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3): 459–
485.
Clemons EK. 1991. Evaluation of strategic investments in
information technology. Communications of the ACM
34(1): 22–36.
Connelly C, Kelloway EK. 2003. Predictors of em-
ployees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 24:
294.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Busi-
ness School Press: Boston, MA.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 2000. Working Knowledge. Har-
vard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
De Long DW, Fahey L. 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers
to knowledge management. Academy of Management
Executive 14(4): 113–127.
Denison DR. 1996. What is the difference between
organizational culture and organizational climate? A
native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.
Academy of Management Review 21(3): 619–654.
Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. 2001. Knowledge
management: an organizational capabilities perspec-
tive. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1):
185–214.
Gordon GG, Di Tomaso N. 1992. Predicting corporate
performance from organizational culture. Journal of
Management Studies 29(6): 783–796.
Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of

the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special
Issue 17: 109–122.
Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. 2000. Knowledge manage-
ment’s social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel. Slo-
an Management Review Fall: 71–80.
Hahn J, Subramani MR. 2002. A framework of knowl-
edge management systems: issues and challenges for
theory and practice. In International Conference on Infor-
mation Systems Proceedings.
Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T. 1999. What’s your
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review March–April: 106–116.
Harris DB. 1996. Creating a knowledge centric informa-
tion technology environment. />ckc.htm
Hedlund G. 1994. A model of knowledge management
and the n-form corporation. Strategic Management Jour-
nal 15: 73–90.
Hendriks P, Vriens D. 1999. Knowledge-based systems
and knowledge management: friends or foes? Informa-
tion and Management 35(2): 113–126.
Janz DB, Prasarnphanich P. 2003. Understanding the
antecedents of effective knowledge management: the
importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision
Sciences, Atlanta 34(2): 351.
Jennex M, Olfman L. 2004. Assessing knowledge man-
agement success/effectiveness models. In Proceedings
of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Kettinger WJ, Grover V, Guha S, Segars AH. 1994.
Strategic information systems revisited. MIS Quarterly

31–55.
KPMG. 1998. Knowledge management research report.
KPMG website: www.kpmg.com
Lindsey K. 2002. Measuring knowledge management
effectiveness: A task-contingent organizational cap-
abilities perspective. Eighth American Conference on
Information Systems, pp. 2085–2090.
Martinsons MG. 1993. Cultivating the champions for
strategic information systems. Journal of Systems Man-
agement 44(8): 31–34.
Mason D. 2003. Tailoring scenario planning to the
company culture. Strategy and Leadership 31(2):
25–28.
McEvily B, Peronne V, Zaheer A. 2003. Trust as
an organization principle. Organization Science 14:
91–103.
Mertins K, Heisig P, Vorbeck J (eds). 2001. Knowl-
edge Management: Best practices in Europe. Springer:
Berlin.
Moffett S, McAdam R, Parkinson S. 2002. Developing a
model for technology and cultural factors in knowl-
edge management: a factor analysis. Knowledge and
Process Management 9(4): 237–255.
Nelson R, Winter S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Eco-
nomic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.
Nissen ME, Magdi NK, Sengupta KC. 2000. Toward inte-
grating knowledge management, processes, and sys-
tems: Position Paper, Proceedings of American
Association for Artificial Intelligence, Spring Symposium,
Stanford, CA, Workshop on Bringing Knowledge to

Business Processes.
Penrose ET. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of
the corporation. Harvard Business Review May–June:
79–91.
Quinn JB. 1992. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and
Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Free Press:
New York.
Quinn JB, Anderson P, Finkelstein S. 1996. Managing
professional intellect: making the most of the best.
Academy of Management Executive 74: 71–80.
Ruggles R. 1997. Knowledge Management tools. Butter-
worth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Schein EH. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership.
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjeiwerden A, Hoog R,
Shadbolt N, Van de Velde W, Wielinga B. 1999.
Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Com-
monKADS Methodology. MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA.
Szulanski G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: a
diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Beha-
viour and Human Decision Processes 82(1): 9–27.
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 215
Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities
and strategic management. Strategic Management Jour-
nal 18(7): 509–533.
Tiwana A, Ramesh B. 2000. Integrating knowledge

on the web. IEEE Internet Computing May–June:
32–39.
Weggeman M. 1999. Wissensmanagement. MITP: Bonn.
Wenger E, McDermott W, Snyder W. 2002. Cultivating
Communities of Practice. Harvard Business Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Yin R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Sage: London.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
216 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly