The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks
Abstract
There is a growing recognition in the business community about the importance of managing knowledge. Some organizations have taken initiatives to understand and manage this critical resource. Major organizations have appointed chief knowledge officers (CKOs) and chief learning officers to formally initiate and cultivate KM activities in their organizations. In spite of these initiatives, the bulk of organizations still have not approached knowledge management (KM) activity formally or deliberately. The cause for this lack of effective management of knowledge could be that most organizations are still struggling to comprehend the KM concept. The reason for this confusion and lack of clarity can be attributed to a gap between the emerging KM phenomena and the current lack of understanding about this phenomena by researchers and practitioners. To bridge the gap, the fundamental issue of identifying salient characteristics of KM phenomena needs to be addressed. This is a prerequisite for systematic research into the nature and possibilities of KM, as well as for easing the emergence of KM into practice. Researchers have proposed a variety of KM framework models and perspectives to help understand this emerging phenomenon. Each of them addresses certain KM elements. However, none of them appears to subsume all of the others. The major contribution of this paper is that it presents a summary and comparative analysis of these 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
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Cited by
Harmonisation of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe
Heisig, P. (2009) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270910971798 · Cited by 615
An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in organizations
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(00)00046-9 · Cited by 555
Self-citationKnowledge management and measurement: a critical review
A.F. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-12-2012-0381 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2003-01-20
- Pages
- 15
- ISSN
- 1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1602760490
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 2
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/hicss.1999.772796
- The paper
- Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2003). Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1999.772796
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.