IntroductIon An important endeavor within the field of knowledge management (KM) is to better understand the nature of knowledge organizations. These are variously called knowledge-based organizations, knowledge-centric organizations, knowledge-intensive organizations, knowledge-oriented organizations, and so forth. One approach to doing so is to study the characteristics of specific organizations of this type such as Chaparral Steel A complementary approach is to study various frameworks that have been advanced for systematically characterizing the elements, processes, and relationships that are found in knowledge organizations. Here, we examine three such frameworks that are representative of the variety in perspectives that have been advocated for understanding the nature of knowledge organizations. These frameworks share a view that sees knowledge as a key organizational asset that enables action. However, they differ in emphases (e.g., asset vs. action) and constructs. This article is organized as a systematic review of the three frameworks. The content relies heavily on the original presentations found in the referenced publications. Space limitations do not permit a comparative analysis or synthesis of the frameworks. Nevertheless, taken together, the reviews do offer valuable vantage points for studying knowledge organizations and useful departure points for more detailed consideration of these as well as other frameworks concerned with knowledge organizations. The Intangible Assets Framework of Knowledge Organizations, as developed by Karl Sveiby (1997), is considered first. It relies on the concept of intangible assets and characterizes companies for whom these assets are important. Second, the Knowledge Management Cycle Framework 2037 Knowledge Organizations introduced by Wiig, de Hoog, and van der Spek (1997) emphasizes the cyclical nature and means of managing an organization's knowledge assets. Third, the Knowledge Flow Framework advanced by Newman (2003) emphasizes flows of knowledge assets in the sense of agents performing transformations on knowledge-bearing artifacts. Each framework description starts with a brief overview of the framework from the perspective of its creator(s). It continues by describing and defining the elements, processes, and relationships of the framework in encyclopedic format. Additional references to related works by other authors also are provided for readers who wish to further explore the framework's perspective. Where pictorial renditions of a framework are available, they are reproduced to visually tie together the concepts.
[1]
Gregoris Mentzas,et al.
Semantic Interfaces for Personal and Social Knowledge Work
,
2011,
Int. J. Knowl. Based Organ..
[2]
Animesh Adhikari,et al.
A Framework for Synthesizing Arbitrary Boolean Queries Induced by Frequent Itemsets
,
2013,
Int. J. Knowl. Based Organ..
[3]
Murray E. Jennex.
Knowledge Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications
,
2007
.
[4]
Kostas S. Metaxiotis,et al.
Knowledge-Based Development for Cities and Societies: Integrated Multi-Level Approaches
,
2010
.
[5]
Mohd Syazwan Abdullah,et al.
Ontology-Based Applications for Enterprise Systems and Knowledge Management
,
2012
.
[6]
N. Staggers.
INTERNET-BASED ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
,
2002
.
[7]
L. Pereira,et al.
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations
,
2011
.
[8]
Yang Lin,et al.
Factors Affecting KM Implementation in the Chinese Community
,
2010,
Int. J. Knowl. Manag..
[9]
Cristina Martinez-Fernandez,et al.
Making space and place for knowledge production : socio-spatial development of knowledge community precincts
,
2010
.