The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 153 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review
Open accessAbstract
Purpose - Knowledge is the currency of the current economy, a vital organisational asset and a key to creating a sustainable competitive advantage. The consequent interest in Knowledge Management (KM) has spurred an exponential increase in publications covering a broad spectrum of diverse and overlapping research areas. The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review and categorised analysis of the rapidly growing number of KM publications, and offer a comprehensive reference for new-comers embarking on research in the field with a particular focus on the area of Knowledge Measurement.\nDesign/methodology/approach - A total of 350 articles published in peer-reviewed journals over the last decade are carefully reviewed, analysed and categorised according to their specific subject matter in the KM context.\nFindings - KM research tends to fall in one of five categories: (1) Ontology of Knowledge and KM, (2) Knowledge Management Systems, (3) Role of Information Technology, (4) Managerial & Social issues, and (5) Knowledge Measurement. Despite the accumulation of extensive publication efforts in some areas, a series of disagreements and a theory-practice gap are revealed as challenging issues that need to be addressed.\nResearch limitations/implications - The scope of this study does not cover KM research in its entirety due to the vast nature of the research field.\nOriginality/value - This paper presents a new birds-eye view of the KM landscape through a novel taxonomy of KM research providing researchers with new insights for future applied research, and offers a comprehensive critical review of major knowledge measurement frameworks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Increasing returns and long-run growth
Romer, P. M. (1986) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261420 · Cited by 20,149
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation
(1997) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(97)80234-x · Cited by 13,156
POLANYI, M. (1997) · Knowledge in Organisations · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,408
Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-5167 · Cited by 10,802
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250961 · Cited by 10,176
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669 · Cited by 6,233
A General Equilibrium Approach To Monetary Theory
Tobin, J. (1969) · Journal of Money, Credit and Banking · doi:10.2307/1991374 · Cited by 5,294
Cited by
Knowledge management in higher education: A literature review and further research avenues
Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2022) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1080/14778238.2020.1730717 · Cited by 131
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., & Martelo-Landroguez, S. (2020) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/jic-03-2019-0048 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- A.F. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-10-21
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 873-901
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124867721
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 153
- FWCI
- 62.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/jkm-12-2012-0381
- The paper
- A.F. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2013). Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-12-2012-0381
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.