Surfacing the Philosophical Assumptions of KM Frameworks

The importance of knowledge management in relation to the knowledge economy is well-recognised. However, successful developments of KM rely on resolving the lack of cumulativeness and conceptual integration which characterises the discipline at present. This papers addresses this research problem by developing a simple three-dimensional framework based on three 'knowledge interests' found in Habermas' Knowledge and Human Interests and then applying the framework to surface the philosophical assumptions of a sample of knowledge management frameworks. Based on this analysis, implications for the use of these frameworks in both research and practice are then discussed

[1]  Zining Guo,et al.  Habermasian Inquiring System: Toward a General Framework for Knowledge Management Research , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[2]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[3]  B. Rubenstein-Montano,et al.  A systems thinking framework for knowledge management , 2001, Decis. Support Syst..

[4]  Dianne Hall,et al.  Knowledge Management and the Leading IS Journals: An Analysis of Trends and Gaps in Published Research , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  H. Moed,et al.  Business Research , 1938, Nature.

[6]  B. Endres.  Habermas and Critical Thinking , 1996 .

[7]  J. Habermas.  Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[8]  S. Deetz.  Crossroads---Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy , 1996 .

[9]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[10]  D. Stenmark.  Information vs. knowledge: the role of intranets in knowledge management , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[11]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  The nonsense of knowledge management , 2002, Inf. Res..

[12]  Tim Brady,et al.  Knowledge management and the politics of knowledge: illustrations from complex products and systems , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  F. Blackler.  Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[14]  Varun Grover, Thomas H. Davenport.  General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda , 2001 .

[15]  D. Leidner,et al.  KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN IS RESEARCH , 2002 .

[16]  M. Lynn.  Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1996 .

[17]  Tony Holden,et al.  From knowledge theory to management practice: towards an integrated approach , 2001, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  Varun Grover,et al.  General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Michael Koenig,et al.  Knowledge management: another management fad? , 2002, Inf. Res..

[20]  J. Habermas,et al.  Knowledge and Human Interests , 1972 .

[21]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[22]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .