Knowledge-Management
Für Ilona
Für Ilona
-
- 1 / 95
-
Cartes-fiches
Begründung: Porter (1991) argues resources are valuable only because they allow firms to perform activities — i.e., processes, not resources in isolation, are the true source of competitive advantage.
Begründung: Riempp (2004, p. 135) defines support processes exactly this way — they keep business processes running rather than directly creating the product or service.
Begründung: Barney (1991) argues the opposite: processes leveraging intangible resources are more likely to create competitive advantage than those using tangible ones — this is precisely why KM is considered a credible source of competitive advantage.
Begründung: These six interconnected "KM building blocks" (Fig. 5) form the central process model the unit uses to structure knowledge-related activity.
Begründung: These two additional processes close the loop between strategic intent (goals) and evaluation (assessment), connecting the six operational core processes back to organizational strategy.
Begründung: Probst et al. stress the six processes are closely interconnected; changes in one process affect the others, so isolated improvement of a single process alone is not considered meaningful.
Begründung: This four-part categorization is one of several "different perceptions of KM processes" (Tab. 2) the unit contrasts with Probst et al., Davenport & Prusak, and others.
Begründung: That three-part list belongs to Probst et al. (2006) (as a subset of their six). Davenport & Prusak (2000) instead categorize KM processes as knowledge generation, knowledge codification, and knowledge transfer.
Begründung: That description matches codification. Personalization instead aims at solving strategic problems by channeling individual expertise and providing creative, analytically rigorous advice, relying more on person-to-person contact than on IS.
Begründung: The unit contrasts these firms with Accenture and EY (codification examples), following Hansen et al.'s (1999) original consulting-industry illustration.
Begründung: Leveraging is one of the "existing knowledge" strategies (the other being appropriating); the classic example is product-specification knowledge from procurement being reused by controlling to classify assets.
Begründung: That description matches "appropriating." Probing instead means explorative development of entirely new knowledge in new knowledge areas, e.g., through research.
Begründung: Normative goals build a knowledge-embracing culture, strategic goals define core knowledge needs, and operational goals ensure the first two are actually implemented at the management/execution level.
Begründung: One of the five criteria a CSF must satisfy is that it be expressed as actions that have to be taken — not as a description of the end state — since CSFs are meant to guide concrete organizational behavior.
Begründung: This is one of the named causes in Freund's (1988) "CSFs: what can go wrong" table, alongside incorrect CSFs, weak performance indicators, and management frustration.
Begründung: Riempp (2004) defines KPIs as the basis for evaluating/steering processes and leadership; del-Rey-Chamorro et al. (2003) add that useful KPIs cannot be developed unless their number stays limited.
Begründung: Jennex & Olfman (2005) define KM success as improvement in organizational effectiveness through reuse of knowledge and by providing suitable knowledge to those who need it, when needed — a broader, non-purely-financial definition.
Begründung: Hansen et al. (1999) contrast these codification-oriented firms (heavy reuse of codified knowledge via IS) with personalization-oriented McKinsey and Bain.
Begründung: These four are distinguished along two dimensions (existing vs. new knowledge; transfer vs. creation), distinct from Hansen et al.'s two-strategy framework or Probst et al.'s process model.
Begründung: The five criteria are: important for overall goals, controllable by the organization, few in number, expressed as actions (not end states), and applicable (though not necessarily applied) across similar organizations in the same industry.
Begründung: This four-dimension definition captures both process-oriented and outcome-oriented aspects of KM success, and is later expanded in the Palte et al. (2011) paper to include KM process/system efficiency and organizational culture.
Begründung: Jennex & Olfman adapt DeLone & McLean's information/system/service quality constructs into KM-specific equivalents (knowledge quality, system quality, service quality) feeding into net benefits.
Begründung: Based on data from 150 knowledge workers, Kulkarni et al. (2006) found that besides KMS and knowledge quality, goal setting and adequate reward systems tied to these four organizational-support factors are critical for successful KMS implementation.
Begründung: This framing ties KM strategy back to overall business strategy, consistent with the unit's chosen understanding of KM strategy as a sub-strategy alongside IT, HR, and finance (Hansen et al. 1999).
Begründung: These form the interconnected "KM building blocks" cycle, complemented by the outer control loop of knowledge goals and knowledge assessment.
Begründung: The two approaches differ along competitive strategy, economic model, IT intensity, and HR practices — a framework the unit treats as the dominant view of KM strategy at the sub-strategy level.
Begründung: These three dimensions apply to KM goals just as they would to other organizational domains such as production, and they help translate abstract strategic goals into measurable operational ones.
Begründung: All three models converge on the importance of leadership/management support, knowledge quality, and actual use of knowledge, despite differing structurally.
Begründung: This is Pümpin's (1992) definition, cited in the unit as the basis for understanding organizational culture as something observable in everyday behavior, not just declared in mission statements.
Begründung: These three symbol groups (slogans/guidelines; communication and conflict behavior; organigrams, logos, product design) are how external parties can observe an organization's culture from outside.
Begründung: These three functions explain why culture matters for KM specifically — a culture that motivates, coordinates, and integrates employees is a precondition for voluntary knowledge sharing.
Begründung: GM adopted just-in-time and kanban's explicit mechanics but not the tacit, built-in worker-participation element that made these systems work in Japan and Germany, contributing to major 1998 strikes and a near-total production shutdown.
Begründung: These five values structure the unit's discussion of what a KM-supporting culture looks like at the level of individual employee behavior and management response.
Begründung: This is the opposite of openness as defined: openness means employees do NOT withhold knowledge or information objects out of fear of exploitation, but instead share generously.
Begründung: The CKO is explicitly positioned at the strategy layer as an "initiator," typically a visionary in upper/middle management who drives KM awareness and cultural change; process-layer roles are knowledge worker, topic owner, experts, and sponsors.
Begründung: Sponsors serve as a bridge in Riempp's (2004) role architecture, linking the strategic initiator function (CKO) with the operational roles carrying out KM activities day to day.
Begründung: The unit is explicit that a KMS alone is insufficient for KM success; an open, KM-supporting organizational culture with the right values, and an adequate organizational setting (roles), are equally essential.
Begründung: The CKO is the sole strategy-layer role in Riempp's (2004) overview, while topic owner, expert, sponsor, and knowledge worker all sit at the process layer.
Begründung: Sainsbury's rollout also included early workshop engagement with end users, deliberate outreach to non-headquarters staff (e.g., butchers, bakers), and hiring dedicated knowledge managers/specialists — the opposite of restricting access to headquarters only.
Begründung: Fairness means achievements are credited to the correct employees, and misattributing others' intellectual property is ostracized or formally punished — one of the five named values alongside trust, openness, recognition, and motivation.