Looking beyond knowledge sharing: an integrative approach to knowledge management culture

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to identify the main knowledge processes associated with organizational knowledge culture. A diverse range of knowledge processes have been referred to in the extant literature, but little agreement exists on which knowledge processes are critical and should be supported by organizational culture. Design/methodology/approach Using a systematic literature review methodology, this study examined the primary literature – peer-reviewed and scholarly articles published in the top seven knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC)-related journals. Findings The core knowledge processes have been identified – knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and knowledge implementation. The paper suggests that a strategy for implementing successful organizational KM initiatives requires precise understanding and effective management of the core knowledge infrastructures and processes. Although technology infrastructure is an important aspect of any KM initiative, the integration of knowledge into management decisions and practices relies on the extent to which the organizational culture supports or hinders knowledge processes. Research limitations/implications The focus of the study was on the articles published in the top seven KM/IC journals; important contributions in relevant publications in other KM journals, conference papers, books and professional reports may have been excluded. Practical implications Practitioners will benefit from a better understanding of knowledge processes involved in KM initiatives and investments. From a managerial perspective, the study offers an overview of the state of organizational knowledge culture research and suggests that for KM initiatives to be successful, the organization requires an integrated culture that is concerned with knowledge processes as a set of inextricably inter-related processes. Originality/value For the first time, a comprehensive list of diverse terms used in describing knowledge processes has been identified. The findings remove the conceptual ambiguity resulting from the inconsistent use of different terms for the same knowledge process by identifying the three major and overarching knowledge processes. Moreover, this study points to the need to attend to the inextricably interrelated nature of these three knowledge processes. Finally, this is the first time that a study provides evidence that shows the KM studies appear to be biased towards Knowledge sharing.