Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring knowledge management software implementation from a knowing-in-practice perspective

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper draws attention to a major issue of Knowledge Management (KM) technology implementation: potential sources of incongruence between KM software and the adopting organization. Using the case of a global consultancy firm, the paper explains KM software-organization incongruences as the consequence of differences between organizational and KM software developer’s knowledge work context and practice. Such differences reflect the differing ‘situated’ knowledge work practices that KM software developers and adopting organizations deliberately acquire and evolve over time. Theoretically, this paper gives a more comprehensive account of how knowledge work practices emerged and were then embedded into the software or the organization. Practically, this study would help make organizations more aware of the factors influencing KM software adoption and implementation, particularly in the case of large firms that are characterized by high-value, text-based content for decision-making such as professional service, R&D, and healthcare organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, we use the word ‘technology’, ‘software’ and ‘portal’ interchangeably.

  2. Given the context of using an IS in an organization, normative structures represent the rules imposed by an institutional context or environment (which users must abide or follow) while authoritative structures refer to the norms and standards specified by designers. Additionally, interpretive structures denote users’ shared belief of how the work should be performed by using an IS to achieve their goals or objectives. Social structures also mean some forms of allocative ‘resources’ available for such rules, standards, norms and beliefs to be adopted and exercised (Orlikowski 2002, 2000).

  3. Their propositions and intentions for instance involve making a number of choices about what pages to include and exclude in the reference database, and how to sort and rank such pages in the database. For more information about how Google search engine works and how users can even manipulate such page ranks for their own interests, please access: https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/thestory.

  4. This is an industry term meaning without modifications.

  5. Practice is defined as the “organization’s routine use of knowledge and often has a tacit component, embedded partly in individual skills and party in collaborative social arrangements” (Szulanski 1996: 28). Generally, organizations, both software vendors and adopters alike, are attempting to adopt new managerial ideologies and practices in order to retain legitimacy within their particular field, rather than simply to improve efficiency (Meyer and Rowan 1997).

  6. The company name has been disguised to respect confidentiality.

  7. Information about the KM group can be found in Table 1.

  8. The KM group has 20 members who are also senior consultants in their service sectors.

  9. Organizational metadata describes the name of the project bid and document, content type, author, service sector, publishing and modifying time, priority, keywords, etc. for effective classification and archiving.

  10. There are two service teams: one in Bangalore, India and the other in the Philippines. These teams designed and developed archiving solutions for content and ‘cradle to grave’ content management lifecycles. In 2008, they were responsible for over 1.2 million documents held within PelicanAce’s group-wide workspaces environments and over 3300 project summaries collected and published in the group knowledge repository.

  11. ‘Active’ means that they spend 100 % of their time on current or recently completed projects.

  12. A super-user is a well-known or very experienced expert in a particular service sector who can provide advice to help resolve problems facing the project.

  13. To receive approval, a report justifying adding the super-user to the project has to be filed to the corporate administrators. It normally took at least 3 working days to know the decision.

  14. Metadata helps to identify a particular workspace among hundreds of workspaces operated by teams throughout the world by including the title (URL) of the workspace, the name of the business group owning it, owning operation and owning business, active status, languages, keywords and sub-types, default reader group, and the default site collection admin group.

  15. These two IT professionals are also member of the CIO office (See Table 1). They neither opposed the views of central administrators, nor supported local administrators.

  16. The KM group surveyed and received feedback from over 35 local administrators (out of 52 local administrators in total) in three key areas: The Nordic countries, the Middle East, and the central Europe (the UK, Germany and France).

References

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MISQ, 25(1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6, 997–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, N., Gardner, H. K., & Morris, T. (2007). Knowledge-based innovation: emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 406–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogenrieder, I., & Nooteboom, B. (2004). Learning groups: What types are there? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultancy firm. Organization Studies, 25(2), 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.

  • Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: what have we learned? Journal of Information Technology, 22(4), 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, M., Sohn, K., Arling, P. and Granados, N. (2009). Applying Systems Thinking to Knowledge Management Systems: The Case of Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne. Scholarship and Professional Work - Business Paper 148. http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cob_papers/148.

  • Dougherty, D. (2004). Organizing practices in services: capturing practice-based knowledge for innovation. Strategic Organization, 2(1), 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulipovici, A., & Robey, D. (2013). Strategic alignment and misalignment of knowledge management systems: a social representation perspective. JMIS, 29(4), 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and virtuous circles in the Management of Knowledge: the case of Infosys technologies. MISQ, 29(1), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2005). Beyond best practice. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999). Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2/3), 472–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, S. D. H., & Lee, C. F. (2006). The problems of Embeddedness: knowledge transfer, coordination and reuse in information systems. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1289–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: unexplored issues and suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Introna, L. D., & Nissenaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettinger, W.J, and Marchand, D.A. (2005). Leveraging information locally and globally: The right mix of flexibility and standardization. IMD Research Paper 2005–02. Available at: http://www.imd.org/research/publications/upload/Marchand_Kettinger_WP_2005_02_Level_1.pdf

  • Kettinger, W. J., Marchand, D. A., & Davis, J. M. (2010). Designing enterprise IT architectures to optimize flexibility and standardization in global business. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(2), 95–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. L., & Star, S. L. (1990). Conceptual foundations for the development of organizational decision support system. In Proceedings 23rd Hawaii international conference on systems science (pp. 143–151).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MISQ, 23(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18(6), 973–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Z., & Lee, J. (2000). An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luftman, J., Zadeh, H. S., Derksen, B., Santana, M., Rigoni, E. H., & Huang, Z. D. (2013). Key information technology and management issues 2012–2013: an international study. Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 354–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & BA, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MISQ, 24(4), 569–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating KM Technologies in Organizational Business Processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marabelli, M., & Newell, S. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: the practice perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, A., Carroll, J., & Stern, L. (2010). Software appropriation over time: from adoption to stabilization and beyond. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1997). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as a myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 364–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information Technology in Organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information System Research, 2(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). The entangling of technology and work in organizations (pp. 1–46). Working Paper Series of Information Systems Department: London School of Economics, University of London, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravishankar, M. N., Pan, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (2011). Examining the strategic alignment and implementation success of a KMS: a subculture-based multilevel analysis. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roell, M. (2004) “Distributed KM - Improving Knowledge Workers' Productivity and Organizational Knowledge Sharing with Weblog-based Personal Publishing,” The European Conference on Webblogs [Online]. Available: http://www.roell.net/publikationen/distributedkm.shtml#knowledgework. Accessed: Aug 10, 2014

  • Schultze, U. (2000). A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work. MISQ, 24(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U., & Boland, R. J. (2000). Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices. Journal of Strategic Information System, 9, 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2002). Practice-based Design of Information Systems: notes from the Hyperdeveloped world. The Information Society, 18(2), 139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing knowledge: commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human Relations, 54(7), 933–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of best practice Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27–43.

  • Tallon, P. P. (2007). A process-oriented perspective on the alignment of information technology and business strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. S. H., & Men, B. (2008). Knowledge portals in Chinese consulting firms: a task–technology fit perspective. European Journal of Information System, 17, 557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townley, B. (1993). Performance appraisal and the emergence of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2, 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2004). ‘Best’for whom?: the tension between ‘best practice’ ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4), 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. L., Scott, S. V., & Galliers, R. D. (2006). The creation of ‘best practice’software: myth, reality and ethics. Information and Organization, 16(3), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Meister, D., & Gray, P. (2013). Social influence and knowledge management system use: evidence from panel data. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MISQ, 29(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publication.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management & Information Systems, College of Business, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    Khuong Le-Nguyen

  2. School of Management, Royal Holloway College, University of London, London, UK

    Romano Dyerson & G. Harindranath

Authors
  1. Khuong Le-Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Romano Dyerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Harindranath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khuong Le-Nguyen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le-Nguyen, K., Dyerson, R. & Harindranath, G. Exploring knowledge management software implementation from a knowing-in-practice perspective. Inf Syst Front 20, 1117–1133 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9713-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9713-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation