Knowledge-Management

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.

Begründung: Reporting lines and hierarchies depend directly on leadership principles, and leadership sets the example that encourages employees to see knowledge-exchange opportunities in formal and informal networks positively.

Begründung: These groups let external observers infer an organization's culture: language (slogans, guidelines), actions (how conflict/mistakes/teamwork are handled), and artifacts (organigrams, logos, product design).

Begründung: These four process-layer roles operationalize KM day to day, complementing the single strategy-layer role (CKO) that initiates and steers KM at the organizational level.

Begründung: This is the paper's central empirical finding across three panel rounds of the KMBF-PSF benchmarking study: a better-rated strategy layer correlates with a better-rated process layer.

Begründung: The opposite reasoning applies: PSFs were chosen precisely because their client-service and project-management processes are largely homogeneous across the industry, which makes in-depth, comparable benchmarking feasible within a single industry.

Begründung: The paper explicitly builds its 320-question benchmarking instrument on Riempp's (2004) IKMS, reusing its three-layer, four-pillar structure framed by organizational culture.

Begründung: Alongside integration with culture, vertical integration between the three layers, and integration of KM processes/roles, horizontal integration across content/competence/collaboration/orientation pillars (typically via a central portal) is the fourth named dimension.

Begründung: The paper discusses all three approaches and their respective weaknesses (fuzzy RoI/RoK results, non-comparable IC results, inconsistent BSC application) before opting for benchmarking as its own methodology.

Begründung: This definition underlies why the authors chose benchmarking over purely internal methods (RoI/RoK, IC, BSC) — it allows continuous, comparative, cross-firm learning rather than a one-off internal measurement.

Begründung: Even the four leading 2008-panel firms with near-full scores in both key layers had weak spots specifically in "performance gains measurement" and "time reduction measurement," an aspect CKOs found particularly important to fix.

Begründung: These five activities (Drew 1997) structure the paper's overall benchmarking methodology, distinct from the KM process or strategy frameworks used elsewhere in the unit.

Begründung: Camp (1989) classifies benchmarking approaches by the participants' role relative to the benchmarking firm; all three of these role-based types count as external (cross-organization) benchmarking, as opposed to purely internal measurement.

Begründung: The other two stated limitations are limited PSF sample size and industry specificity (PSF-only, high-maturity firms) — the study was in fact longitudinal (multiple panel rounds since 2006) with a large (320-item) questionnaire, ruling out C and D.

Begründung: These four dimensions operationalize what "integrated" means in Riempp's (2004) IKMS, and the paper uses them to argue why strategy-layer maturity should propagate into process-layer performance.

Begründung: The authors flag these three limitations themselves, and use them to motivate future research recruiting more participants and incorporating financial data across other industries.

Begründung: Riempp (2004) defines information as "data put in a specific meaningful and understandable context for human beings" — the key step that distinguishes information from raw, uninterpreted data.

Begründung: From a system perspective an IS only stores data enriched with context (i.e., information objects); knowledge itself remains bound to human beings and cannot be stored or transmitted by a system (Riempp 2004).

Begründung: Knowledge is volatile and can become obsolescent or be irrevocably lost; De Long (2004) estimates roughly 5% of worldwide knowledge is lost every year, which is exactly why systematic KM (e.g., retention processes) is needed.

Begründung: Riempp (2004) explicitly ties knowledge to human mental models; anything explicated and stored externally (documents, databases) is an information object, not knowledge in itself.

Begründung: The definitions are reversed: assimilation is information gathered and integrated into existing knowledge, while accommodation is existing knowledge being adapted to new insights or experiences (Smolnik 2006, based on Pulaski 1975/Glasersfeld 1997/Riempp 2004).

Begründung: This is the unit's cited definition (Dey & Abowd 1999, p. 3) underlying the "context-sensitive" characteristic of knowledge, and it explicitly ties context to the user-application interaction, not to abstract, application-independent facts.

Begründung: Per Riempp (2004), building on Nonaka (1994) and Polanyi (1962), tacit knowledge covers unconscious mental-model content (e.g., swimming, empathy) that resists straightforward explication, unlike explicit/exogenous knowledge.

Begründung: The unit differentiates explicit and tacit knowledge by consciousness and communicability, not by a value ranking; tacit knowledge (e.g., experience-based skill) is equally central to organizational competence, so no unconditional superiority claim holds.

Begründung: Organizational knowledge grows from pooling and sharing individuals' first-hand knowledge; an individual's personal knowledge is therefore contained within, not separate from, the broader organizational knowledge base.

Begründung: This is the unit's core working definition (Riempp 2004, p. 76), used throughout the module as the reference point for KM strategy, processes, and success.

Begründung: Per Bohn (1993), the very point of the information/knowledge distinction is that knowledge allows predictions and underpins decision-making, whereas information merely displays a current or past status — the two are not equivalent in predictive value.

Begründung: This is Riempp's (2004, p. 63) definition; information objects only become understood information through a recipient's reflection, but the objects themselves are context-bearing containers, not knowledge or raw data.

Begründung: These two processes (based on Pulaski 1975, Glasersfeld 1997, Riempp 2004) describe how individuals integrate new information into existing knowledge and adapt existing knowledge to new experience, respectively.

Begründung: Boeing offered 9,000 senior employees early retirement; an unexpected order surge then exposed the resulting knowledge gap, shutting down production for over three weeks — a textbook case for why systematic knowledge retention matters.

Begründung: These three characteristics structure the unit's entire treatment of knowledge: subjective (tied to an individual), context-sensitive (embedded in situation), and action-related (constructed through active engagement, per Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Begründung: Ausubel's (2000) distinction separates largely innate cognitive faculties (e.g., perception, problem-solving) from skills built up through repeated experience (e.g., learning to cycle or swim).

Begründung: These three jointly explain why knowledge cannot simply be transferred like data: it is tied to an individual's mental model, embedded in a specific situation, and only constructed through active engagement.

Begründung: This definition frames KM as instrumental — not knowledge for its own sake, but knowledge use in service of predefined organizational goals — which is why the unit later ties KM to goals, CSFs, and KPIs.

Begründung: Together these two processes explain how mental models are continuously updated, underpinning the unit's claim that knowledge is never static but subject to constant (re)construction.