Editing Knowledge management (section)

==Research==
KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 1990s.<ref name=34JAS>{{cite journal|last=McInerney|first=Claire|title=Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology|year=2002|volume=53|issue=12|pages=1009–1018|doi=10.1002/asi.10109|citeseerx=10.1.1.114.9717|s2cid=1859117 }}</ref> It was initially supported by individual practitioners, when [[Skandia]] hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world's first [[chief knowledge officer]] (CKO).<ref name=6KU>{{cite web|title=Information Architecture and Knowledge Management |url=http://iakm.kent.edu/programs/information-use/iu-curriculum.html |publisher=Kent State University |access-date=18 April 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080629190725/http://iakm.kent.edu/programs/information-use/iu-curriculum.html |archive-date=June 29, 2008 }}</ref> Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of [[Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce|CIBC]], Canada), started investigating KM long before that.<ref name=2UNC /> The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximise the intangible assets of their organizations.<ref name=2UNC /> Gradually, CKOs became interested in practical and theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed.<ref name=10Bray>{{cite SSRN|last=Bray|first=David|title=SSRN-Literature Review – Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level|ssrn=991169|date=May 2007}}</ref> The KM idea has been taken up by academics, such as [[Ikujiro Nonaka]] ([[Hitotsubashi University]]), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), [[Thomas H. Davenport]] ([[Babson College]]) and Baruch Lev ([[New York University]]).<ref name=37HBR>{{cite journal|last=Nonaka|first=Ikujiro|title=The knowledge creating company|journal=Harvard Business Review|year=1991|volume=69|issue=6|pages=96–104|url=https://memberfiles.freewebs.com/84/90/65819084/documents/The%20Knowledge-Creating%20Company.pdf|access-date=2019-08-30|archive-date=2020-08-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803010858/https://memberfiles.freewebs.com/84/90/65819084/documents/The%20Knowledge-Creating%20Company.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="27Davenport">{{cite journal|last=Davenport|first=Tom|title=Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?|url=http://blogs.hbr.org/davenport/2008/02/enterprise_20_the_new_new_know.html|journal=Harvard Business Review|access-date=18 April 2013|date=2008-02-19|archive-date=2013-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130619041131/http://blogs.hbr.org/davenport/2008/02/enterprise_20_the_new_new_know.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2001, [[Thomas A. Stewart]], former editor at ''[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]'' magazine and subsequently the editor of ''[[Harvard Business Review]]'', published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital in organizations.<ref name=57Stewart>{{cite book|last=Stewart|first=Thomas A.|title=Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations|year=1998|publisher=Crown Business Publishers|isbn=978-0385483810}}</ref> The KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity.<ref name=2UNC /> First, is a trend toward higher cooperation among academics; single-author publications are less common. Second, the role of practitioners has changed.<ref name=10Bray /> Their contribution to academic research declined from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009.<ref name=44Serenko>{{cite journal|last=Serenko|first=Alexander|author2=Bontis, Nick|author3=Booker, Lorne|author4=Sadeddin, Khaled|author5=Hardie, Timothy|title=A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008)|url=https://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_JKM_MetaAnalysis_Published.pdf|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management|year=2010|volume=14|issue=1|pages=13–23|doi=10.1108/13673271011015534|access-date=2018-06-17|archive-date=2017-12-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215144226/http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_JKM_MetaAnalysis_Published.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Third, the number of academic knowledge management journals has been steadily growing, currently reaching 27 outlets.<ref name=45Serenko>{{cite journal|last=Serenko|first=Alexander|author2=Bontis, Nick|title=Global Ranking of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Academic Journals: 2017 Update|url=https://aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_Ranking_2017.pdf|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management|year=2017|volume=21|issue=3|pages=675–692|doi=10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0490|access-date=2017-08-06|archive-date=2017-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806223216/http://aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_Ranking_2017.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=50Serenko>{{cite journal|last=Serenko|first=Alexander|author2=Bontis, Nick|title=Global Ranking of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Academic Journals: A 2021 Update|url=https://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_KM-IC_journal_ranking_2021.pdf|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management|year=2021|volume=26|issue=1|pages=126–145|doi=10.1108/JKM-11-2020-0814|s2cid=241212544|access-date=2022-07-12|archive-date=2022-07-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220712152726/http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_KM-IC_journal_ranking_2021.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Multiple KM disciplines exist; approaches vary by author and school.<ref name=10Bray /><ref name=51PPH>{{cite book|last=Langton Robbins|first=N. S.|title=Organizational Behaviour|year=2006|publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall|location=Toronto, Ontario|edition=Fourth Canadian}}</ref> As the discipline matured, academic debates increased regarding [[theory]] and practice, including:
* Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance [[knowledge sharing]] and creation.<ref name=19Harv>{{cite journal|last=Alavi|first=Maryam|author2=Leidner, Dorothy E. |title=Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits|journal=Communications of the AIS|year=1999|volume=1|issue=2|url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=374117}}</ref><ref name=54Springer>{{cite book|last1=Rosner|first1=D.|last2=Grote|first2=B.|last3=Hartman|first3=K.|last4=Hofling|first4=B.| last5=Guericke|first5=O.|editor1-first=Uwe M.|editor1-last=Borghoff|editor2-first=Remo|editor2-last=Pareschi|title=Information technology for knowledge management|url=https://archive.org/details/informationtechn00borg|url-access=limited|publisher=Springer Verlag|year=1998|pages=[https://archive.org/details/informationtechn00borg/page/n43 35]–51|chapter=From natural language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering approach}}</ref>
* Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best.<ref name=18Addicot>{{cite journal|last1=Addicot|first1=Rachael|last2=McGivern |first2=Gerry |last3=Ferlie |first3=Ewan |title=Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks|journal=Public Money & Management|year=2006|volume=26|issue=2|pages=87–94|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9302.2006.00506.x|s2cid=154227002}}</ref>
* [[Knowledge ecosystem|Ecological]] with a focus on the interaction of people, [[identity (social science)|identity]], knowledge, and environmental factors as a [[complex adaptive system]] akin to a natural [[ecosystem]].<ref name=8Bray>{{cite SSRN|last=Bray|first=David|title=SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent Environments|ssrn=984600|date=2007-05-07}}</ref><ref name=53rst>{{cite web|last1=Carlson Marcu Okurowsk |first1=Lynn |last2=Marcu |first2=Daniel |last3=Okurowsk |first3=Mary Ellen |title=Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory |url=http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W01/W01-1605.pdf |publisher=University of Pennsylvania |access-date=19 April 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325181330/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W01/W01-1605.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2012 }}</ref>

Regardless of the [[school of thought]], core components of KM roughly include people/culture, processes/structure and technology.  The details depend on the  [[Perspective (cognitive)|perspective]].<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/1350508407071858 | last1=Spender | first1=J.-C. | last2=Scherer | first2=A. G. | year=2007 | title=The Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge Management: Editors' Introduction | journal=Organization | volume=14 | issue=1 | pages=5–28| ssrn=958768| s2cid=143132295 }}</ref> KM perspectives include:
* [[community of practice]]<ref name=3Teacher>{{cite web |title=TeacherBridge: Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice |url=http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20081217030521/http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=17 December 2008 |publisher=Virginia Tech |access-date=18 April 2013 }}</ref>
* [[social network analysis]]<ref name=4Groth>{{cite web|last=Groth|first=Kristina|title=Using social networks for knowledge management|url=http://files.gk-facfil.webnode.com/200000004-ecf7fedf15/groth-ecscw03-ws.pdf|publisher=Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden|access-date=18 April 2013|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222729/http://files.gk-facfil.webnode.com/200000004-ecf7fedf15/groth-ecscw03-ws.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> 
* [[intellectual capital]]<ref name=24Bontis />
* [[information theory]]<ref name=34JAS /><ref name=6KU />
* [[complexity science]]<ref name="7Snowden">{{cite journal|last=Snowden|first=Dave|title=Complex Acts of Knowing – Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management |year=2002|volume=6|issue=2|pages=100–111|doi=10.1108/13673270210424639|citeseerx=10.1.1.126.4537}}</ref>
* constructivism<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nanjappa |first1=Aloka |last2=Grant |first2=Michael M. |year=2003 |title=Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology |journal=Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education |volume=2 |issue=1 |url=http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217030521/http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf |archive-date=2008-12-17 }}</ref><ref name=9citeseer>{{cite web|last=Wyssusek|first=Boris|title=Knowledge Management – A Sociopragmatic Approach (2001)|url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.5850|work=CiteSeerX|access-date=18 April 2013|archive-date=16 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130616222840/http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.5850|url-status=live}}</ref>
The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned<ref name=28Ferg>{{cite journal|last=Ferguson|first=J.|title=Bridging the gap between research and practice|journal=Knowledge Management for Development Journal|year=2005|volume=1|issue=3|pages=46–54|doi=10.1080/03057640500319065|s2cid=145246146}}</ref> with [[action research]] suggested as having more relevance<ref name=21TLO>{{cite journal|last=Andriessen|first=Daniel|title=Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital research|journal=The Learning Organization|year=2004|volume=11|issue=4/5|pages=393–401|doi=10.1108/09696470410538288}}</ref> and the need to translate the findings presented in academic journals to a practice.<ref name=25Booker />

===Dimensions===
Different [[Conceptual framework|frameworks]] for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.<ref name=1Sanchez /> One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes [[tacit knowledge]] and [[explicit knowledge]].<ref name=7Snowden /> Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.<ref name=10Bray /><ref name=20Alavi />

[[File:knowledge spiral.svg|thumb|right|350px|The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi]]
Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model ([[SECI model of knowledge dimensions|SECI]], for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between [[explicit knowledge]] and tacit knowledge.<ref name=38Nonaka>{{cite book|last1=Nonaka|first1=Ikujiro|last2=Takeuchi|first2=Hirotaka|title=The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation|year=1995|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-509269-1|pages=[https://archive.org/details/knowledgecreatin00nona/page/284 284]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/knowledgecreatin00nona/page/284}}</ref> In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.<ref name=38Nonaka />

Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives.<ref name=11Hayes>{{cite book|last1=Hayes|first1=M.|last2=Walsham|first2= G.|editor1-first=M.|editor1-last=Easterby-Smith|editor2-first=M.A.|editor2-last=Lyles|title=The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management|year=2003|publisher=Blackwell|location=Malden, MA|pages=54–77|chapter=Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective |isbn=978-0-631-22672-7}}</ref> The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.<ref name=11Hayes />

Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.<ref name=18Addicot /><ref name=55RST>{{cite web|title=Rhetorical Structure Theory Website|url=https://www.sfu.ca/rst/|work=RST|access-date=19 April 2013|archive-date=17 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517212818/http://www.sfu.ca/rst/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.<ref name="48Wright" /> Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., [[symbol]]s outside our heads).<ref name="48Wright" /><ref>{{Cite journal | year=2004 | title=Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings | journal=Knowledge and Process Management | volume=11 | issue=3 | pages=185–198 | doi=10.1002/kpm.203 | url=http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf | last1=Serenko | first1=Alexander | last2=Bontis | first2=Nick | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926151723/http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf | archive-date=2007-09-26 | hdl=11375/17698 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>  More recently, together with [[Georg von Krogh]] and [[Sven Voelpel]], Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward.<ref name=39Nonaka>{{cite journal|last=Nonaka|first=Ikujiro|author2=von Krogh, Georg|title=Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory|journal=Organization Science|year=2009|volume=20|issue=3|pages=635–652|doi=10.1287/orsc.1080.0412|s2cid=9157692}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Nonaka|first=I.|author2=von Krogh, G. & Voelpel S.|title=Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances|url=http://cmap.upb.edu.co/rid=1P7XV6Y6P-5KWVGS-RC/Art%C3%ADculo%20Org%20Knowledge%20Creation%20Theory%20by%20Nonaka.pdf|journal=Organization Studies|volume=27|issue=8|pages=1179–1208|year=2006|doi=10.1177/0170840606066312|s2cid=145111375|access-date=2018-06-17|archive-date=2018-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617092848/http://cmap.upb.edu.co/rid=1P7XV6Y6P-5KWVGS-RC/Art%C3%ADculo%20Org%20Knowledge%20Creation%20Theory%20by%20Nonaka.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a [[system]] outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from [[embodied knowledge]] representing a learned capability of a human body's [[nervous system|nervous]] and [[endocrine system]]s.<ref name="40Sensky">{{cite journal|last=Sensky|first=Tom|title=Knowledge Management|journal=Advances in Psychiatric Treatment|year=2002|volume=8|issue=5|pages=387–395|doi=10.1192/apt.8.5.387|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the [[Knowledge transfer|transfer]] or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.<ref name="11Hayes" /><ref name="12Bray">{{cite conference |title=Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence |date=December 1, 2005 |conference=North American Assoc. for Computational Social and Organizational Science (NAACSOS) Conference |ssrn=961043 |last1=Bray |first1=David A.}}</ref> Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [[social computing]] tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.<ref name="12Bray" />

===Strategies===
Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities.<ref name=24Bontis>{{cite book|last1=Bontis|first1=Nick|last2=Choo |first2=Chun Wei |title=The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-513866-5}}</ref> Organisations have tried knowledge capture [[incentive]]s, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into [[performance measurement]] plans.<ref name=23MIS>{{cite journal|last=Benbasat|first=Izak|author2=Zmud, Robert|title=Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance|journal=MIS Quarterly|year=1999|volume=23|issue=1|pages=3–16|doi=10.2307/249403|jstor=249403|s2cid=3472783}}</ref> Considerable controversy exists over whether such incentives work and no consensus has emerged.<ref name=16Gupta>{{Cite book |last1=Gupta |first1=Jatinder |last2=Sharma |first2=Sushil|year=2004 |title=Creating Knowledge Based Organizations|publisher=Idea Group Publishing |location=Boston |isbn=978-1-59140-163-6}}</ref>

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy).<ref name=16Gupta /><ref name=13Rathau>{{cite web|url=http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~chens/PDF/IRI00_Rathau.pdf|title=Knowledge Management for Data Interoperability|access-date=18 April 2013|archive-date=17 April 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070417180819/http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~chens/PDF/IRI00_Rathau.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a [[database]], as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided (codification).<ref name=13Rathau /> Another strategy involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy).<ref name=16Gupta /><ref name=13Rathau /> In such an instance, expert individual(s) provide insights to requestor (personalisation).<ref name=7Snowden /> When talking about strategic knowledge management, the form of the knowledge and activities to share it defines the concept between codification and personalization.<ref>Venkitachalam & Willmott (2017)</ref> The form of the knowledge means that it's either [[tacit]] or [[Explicit knowledge|explicit]]. [[Data]] and [[information]] can be considered as explicit and [[know-how]] can be considered as tacit.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Laihonen|first1=Harri|last2=Hannula|first2=Mika|last3=Helander|first3=Nina|last4=Ilvonen|first4=Ilona|last5=Jussila|first5=Jari|last6=Kukko|first6=Marianne |last7=Kärkkäinen|first7=Hannu|last8=Lönnqvist |first8=Antti|last9=Myllärniemi|first9=Jussi  |last10=Pekkola|first10=Samuli|last11=Virtanen|first11=Pasi|last12=Vuori|first12=Vilma|last13=Yliniemi|first13=Terhi|isbn=978-952-15-3057-9|date=2013|title=Tietojohtaminen|url=https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-15-3058-6|language=Finnish|publisher=Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto, Tietojohtamisen tutkimuskeskus Novi
}}</ref>

[[Morten Hansen|Hansen]] et al. defined the two strategies (codification and personalisation).<ref name="auto">Hansen et al., 1999</ref> Codification means a system-oriented method in KM strategy for managing explicit knowledge with organizational objectives.<ref name="Routledge">{{Citation |title=What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Morten T. Hansen, Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney |date=2013-05-13 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780080941042-9 |work=The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001 |pages=66–80 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780080941042-9 |isbn=978-0-08-094104-2 |access-date=2022-04-26|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Codification strategy is document-centered strategy, where knowledge is mainly codified as "people-to-document" method. Codification relies on information infrastructure, where explicit knowledge is carefully codified and stored.<ref name="auto"/> Codification focuses on collecting and storing codified knowledge in electronic databases to make it accessible.<ref name="Smith 2004, p. 7">Smith (2004), p. 7</ref> Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge.<ref>Hall (2006), pp. 119f</ref> In contrast, personalisation encourages individuals to share their knowledge directly.<ref name="Smith 2004, p. 7"/> Personification means human-oriented KM strategy where the target is to improve knowledge flows through networking and integrations related to tacit knowledge with knowledge sharing and creation.<ref name="Routledge"/> Information technology plays a less important role, as it only facilitates communication and knowledge sharing.

Generic knowledge strategies include [[knowledge acquisition]] strategy, knowledge exploitation strategy, knowledge exploration strategy, and [[knowledge sharing]] strategy. These strategies aim at helping organisations to increase their knowledge and [[competitive advantage]].<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bolisani |first1=Ettore |title=Generic Knowledge Strategies |date=2018 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-60657-6_7 |work=Emergent Knowledge Strategies |volume=4 |pages=147–174 |access-date=2023-05-10 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-60657-6_7 |isbn=978-3-319-60656-9 |last2=Bratianu |first2=Constantin|series=Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:<ref name=16Gupta /><ref name=8Bray /><ref name=7Snowden />
* [[Knowledge sharing]] (fostering a culture that encourages the sharing of information, based on the concept that knowledge is not irrevocable and should be shared and updated to remain relevant)
** Make knowledge-sharing a key role in employees' job description
** Inter-project knowledge transfer
** Intra-organisational knowledge sharing
** Inter-organisational knowledge sharing
** Knowledge retention also known as Knowledge Continuation: activities addressing the challenge of knowledge loss as a result of people leaving<ref>Liebowitz, J. (2008). Knowledge retention: strategies and solutions. CRC Press</ref><ref>DeLong, D. W., & Storey, J. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford University Press</ref><ref name="Levy2011">{{cite journal|last1=Levy|first1=Moria|title=Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management|volume=15|issue=4|year=2011|pages=582–600|issn=1367-3270|doi=10.1108/13673271111151974}}</ref>
** Mapping knowledge competencies, roles and identifying current or future predicted gaps.
** Defining for each chosen role the main knowledge that should be retained, and building rituals in which the knowledge is documented or transferred on, from the day they start their job.
** Transfer of knowledge and information prior to employee departure by means of sharing documents, shadowing, mentoring, and more,
* Proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either conducive or obstructive to knowledge sharing)
* [[Storytelling]] (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)
* Cross-project learning
* [[After action review|After-action review]]s
* [[Knowledge mapping]] requires the organization to know what kind of knowledge organization it has, how it is distributed throughout the company, and how to efficiently use and re-use that knowledge. (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible by all)
* [[Communities of practice]]
* Expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts)
* [[Expert Systems|Expert systems]] (knowledge seeker responds to one or more specific questions to reach knowledge in a repository)
* [[Best practice]] transfer
* Knowledge fairs
* Competency-based management (systematic evaluation and planning of knowledge related competences of individual organisation members)
* Master–apprentice relationship, Mentor-mentee relationship, [[job shadow]]ing
* [[Collaborative software]] technologies ([[wiki]]s, shared bookmarking, blogs, [[social software]], etc.)
* Knowledge repositories ([[database]]s, [[enterprise bookmarking|bookmarking engines]], etc.)
* Measuring and reporting [[intellectual capital]] (a way of making explicit knowledge for companies)
* [[Knowledge broker]]s (some organisational members take on responsibility for a specific "field" and act as first reference on a specific subject)
* [[Knowledge farming]] (using [[note-taking]] software to cultivate a [[knowledge graph]], part of [[knowledge agriculture]])
* Knowledge capturing (refers to a process where trained people extract valuable or else desired knowledge from experts and embed it in databases)

===Motivations===
Multiple motivations lead organisations to undertake KM.<ref name=20Alavi>{{cite journal|last=Alavi|first=Maryam |author2=Leidner, Dorothy E. |title=Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues|journal=MIS Quarterly|year=2001|volume=25|issue=1|pages=107–136|doi=10.2307/3250961|jstor=3250961|s2cid=1780588 |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/26eed93a6aadfda0e1f43ff7e30c6fd2d308151b }}</ref> Typical considerations include:<ref name=7Snowden /><ref>{{cite web | url=https://nsflow.com/blog/knowledge-management-in-manufacturing-why-is-it-so-important | title=Managing knowledge in manufacturing | access-date=2022-08-02 | archive-date=2022-08-19 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819022610/https://nsflow.com/blog/knowledge-management-in-manufacturing-why-is-it-so-important | url-status=live }}</ref>
* Making available increased knowledge content in the [[New product development|development]] and provision of [[product (business)|products]] and [[service (economics)|services]]
* Achieving shorter development cycles
* Improving consistency of knowledge and standardized expert skills among staff
* Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning
* Leveraging [[expert]]ise across the organisation
* Increasing [[Social network|network]] [[Interconnectivity|connectivity]] between internal and external individuals
* Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work
* Solving intractable or [[wicked problem]]s
* Managing intellectual capital and assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and [[Procedural knowledge|know-how]] possessed by key individuals or stored in repositories)