According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there is no doubt that we live in a Knowledge-Based Economy (OECD, 2014). Ragab and Arisha (2013, p. 873) highlight that “knowledge is the currency of the current economy, a vital organizational asset and a key to creating a sustainable competitive advantage”. Therefore, knowledge assumes a key role in developing sustainable competitive advantage, both at organizational and national level. Interestingly, a recent survey developed among 729 CKO by the Global Knowledge Management Observatory (Kingston-griffiths, 2015, p. 4) revealed that the perception of knowledge Management (KM) is that it still lacks maturity and continues to be seen as a technology-led function. The report highlights that several managers perceived KM as in decline. However, within academe Serenko et. al. (2010, p. 16) highlight that the KM discipline is very diverse. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of Knowledge to support economic growth, both at the organizational and national level, complaints about the role of KM are emerging. To help KM to increase its importance research must “help managers become better reflective practitioners” (Starkey and Madan, 2001, p. 4), developing pragmatic science that “simultaneously addresses questions of applied … relevance and does so in a methodologically robust manner” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 394). Recent literature recognizes that KM is showing signs of scientific maturity (Serenko and Dumay, 2015) and that can be used to support the development of pragmatic science. Focusing on KM within specific sectors, such us the public sector, Massaro et. al (2015) recognized that literature is fragmented and requires a strong emphasis on research methods. Similar considerations are developed in the field of KM in SMEs (Durst and Edvardsson, 2012; Massaro et al., 2016). There is no preference for quantitative or qualitative studies (Massaro, Dumay and Bagnoli, 2015), but researchers should show a sincere interest in getting their hands dirty within the organisation (Serenko and Dumay, 2015, p. 22) to guarantee the relevance of their studies.

Is Knowledge Management Declining?

GARLATTI, Andrea;MASSARO, Maurizio
2016

Abstract

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there is no doubt that we live in a Knowledge-Based Economy (OECD, 2014). Ragab and Arisha (2013, p. 873) highlight that “knowledge is the currency of the current economy, a vital organizational asset and a key to creating a sustainable competitive advantage”. Therefore, knowledge assumes a key role in developing sustainable competitive advantage, both at organizational and national level. Interestingly, a recent survey developed among 729 CKO by the Global Knowledge Management Observatory (Kingston-griffiths, 2015, p. 4) revealed that the perception of knowledge Management (KM) is that it still lacks maturity and continues to be seen as a technology-led function. The report highlights that several managers perceived KM as in decline. However, within academe Serenko et. al. (2010, p. 16) highlight that the KM discipline is very diverse. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of Knowledge to support economic growth, both at the organizational and national level, complaints about the role of KM are emerging. To help KM to increase its importance research must “help managers become better reflective practitioners” (Starkey and Madan, 2001, p. 4), developing pragmatic science that “simultaneously addresses questions of applied … relevance and does so in a methodologically robust manner” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 394). Recent literature recognizes that KM is showing signs of scientific maturity (Serenko and Dumay, 2015) and that can be used to support the development of pragmatic science. Focusing on KM within specific sectors, such us the public sector, Massaro et. al (2015) recognized that literature is fragmented and requires a strong emphasis on research methods. Similar considerations are developed in the field of KM in SMEs (Durst and Edvardsson, 2012; Massaro et al., 2016). There is no preference for quantitative or qualitative studies (Massaro, Dumay and Bagnoli, 2015), but researchers should show a sincere interest in getting their hands dirty within the organisation (Serenko and Dumay, 2015, p. 22) to guarantee the relevance of their studies.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ejkm-volume14-issue1-article750.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo open access
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 220.2 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
220.2 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11390/1086461
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact