The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management
Abstract
This article draws attention to a number of errors that could potentially cripple the efforts of any organization attempting to generate and leverage knowledge. Many of these errors are associated with the concept of knowledge itself—how knowledge is understood in organizational settings. The article notes the sources of each error as well as some key implications for managing knowledge. It concludes with some brief suggestions on how to avoid, or at least ameliorate these errors.
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
Cited by
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250961 · Cited by 10,176
A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744 · Cited by 361
García‐Morales, V. J., Llorens‐Montes, F. J., & Verdú‐Jover, A. J. (2006) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635570610642940 · Cited by 351
The quality of group tacit knowledge
Erden, Z., von Krogh, G., & Nonaka, I. (2008) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2008.02.002 · Cited by 238
Models of consumer value cocreation in health care
Nambisan, P., & Nambisan, S. (2009) · Health Care Management Review · doi:10.1097/hmr.0b013e3181abd528 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Fahey, L., & Prusak, L.
- Venue
- California Management Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-276
- ISSN
- 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-8564
- OpenAlex
- W2076833217
- Cited by
- 904
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 131.17
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/41165954
- The paper
- Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165954
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.
