Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to look at how knowledge management (KM) has entered into a new phase where consolidation and harmonisation of concepts is required. Some first standards have been published in Europe and Australia in order to foster a common understanding of terms and concepts. The aim of this study was to analyse KM frameworks from research and practice regarding their model elements and try to discover differences and correspondences.Design/methodology/approachA total of 160 KM frameworks from science, practice, associations and standardization bodies have been collected worldwide. These frameworks have been analysed regarding the use and understanding of the term knowledge, the terms used to describe the knowledge process activities and the factors influencing the success of knowledge management. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods have been applied.FindingsThe result shows that despite the wide range of terms used in the KM frameworks an underlying consensus was detected regarding the basic categories used to describe the knowledge management activities and the critical success factors of KM. Nevertheless regarding the core term knowledge there is still a need to develop an improved understanding in research and practice.Originality/valueThe first quantitative and qualitative analysis of 160 KM frameworks from different origin worldwide.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
