Editing Knowledge management

{{short description|Processing of knowledge to accomplish organizational goals}}
{{distinguish|Content management|Information management}}
<!-- Please do not change the spelling of the English variations of words to their American versions. This has already been discussed on this article's talk page. -->
{{LibraryandInformation-TopicSidebar}}

'''Knowledge management''' ('''KM''') is the set of procedures for producing, disseminating, utilizing, and overseeing an organization's knowledge and data. It alludes to a multidisciplinary strategy that maximizes knowledge utilization to accomplish organizational goals. Courses in business administration, information systems, management, libraries, and information science are all part of knowledge management, a discipline that has been around since 1991. Information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy are some of the other disciplines that may contribute to KM research. Numerous academic institutions provide master's degrees specifically focused on knowledge management.
As a component of their IT, human resource management, or business strategy departments, many large corporations, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations have resources devoted to internal knowledge management initiatives. These organizations receive KM guidance from a number of consulting firms. Organizational goals including enhanced performance, competitive advantage, innovation, sharing of lessons learned, integration, and ongoing organizational improvement are usually the focus of knowledge management initiatives. These initiatives are similar to organizational learning, but they can be differentiated by their increased emphasis on knowledge management as a strategic asset and information sharing. Organizational learning is facilitated by knowledge management.
The setting of [[supply chain]] may be the most challenging situation for knowledge management since it involves several businesses without a hierarchy or ownership tie; some authors refer to this type of knowledge as transorganizational or interorganizational knowledge. [[industry 4.0]] (or [[Fourth Industrial Revolution|4th industrial revolution]]) and [[digital transformation]] also add to that complexity, as new issues arise from the volume and speed of information flows and knowledge generation.

==History==
Knowledge management efforts have a long history, including on-the-job discussions, formal [[apprenticeship]], [[Internet forum|discussion forums]], corporate libraries, professional training, and mentoring programs.<ref name=2UNC>{{cite web|title=Introduction to Knowledge Management |url=http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html |website=www.unc.edu |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |archive-date=March 19, 2007 |access-date=11 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070319233812/http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html |url-status=unfit }}</ref><ref name=1Sanchez>{{cite book|last=Sanchez|first=R.|title=Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management|year=1996|publisher=Wiley|location=Chichester}}</ref> With increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as [[knowledge base]]s, [[expert system]]s, [[information repository|information repositories]], group [[decision support system]]s, [[intranet]]s, and [[computer-supported cooperative work]] have been introduced to further enhance such efforts.<ref name=2UNC />

In 1999, the term [[personal knowledge management]] was introduced; it refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level.<ref name="48Wright">{{cite journal|last=Wright|first=Kirby|title=Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance|journal=Knowledge Management Research and Practice|year=2005|volume=3|issue=3|pages=156–165|doi=10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500061|s2cid=58474736}}</ref>

In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognised the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, [[business process|process]] and [[measurement]].<ref name="25Booker">{{cite journal|last=Booker|first=Lorne|author2=Bontis, Nick|author3=Serenko, Alexander|title=The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research|url=https://www.aserenko.com/papers/Booker_Bontis_Serenko_KM_relevance.pdf|journal=Knowledge and Process Management|year=2008|volume=15|issue=4|pages=235–246|doi=10.1002/kpm.314|access-date=2018-06-17|archive-date=2017-08-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170808144624/http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Booker_Bontis_Serenko_KM_relevance.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="35Morey">{{cite book|last1=Morey |first1=Daryl|last2=Maybury|first2=Mark|last3=Thuraisingham|first3=Bhavani|title=Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works|year=2002|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-13384-5|pages=451}}</ref> Key lessons learned include people and the cultural norms which influence their behaviors are the most critical resources for successful knowledge creation, dissemination and application; cognitive, social and organisational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and measurement, [[benchmarking]] and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change.<ref name=35Morey /> In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organisations if they are purposeful, concrete and action-orientated.

The [[ISO 9001|ISO 9001:2015 quality management standard]] released in September 2015 introduced a specification for 'organizational knowledge' as a complementary aspect of quality management within an organisation.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14783363.2018.1445965 | doi=10.1080/14783363.2018.1445965 | title=ISO 9001:2015: The evolution and convergence of quality management and knowledge management for competitive advantage | date=2020 | last1=Wilson | first1=John P. | last2=Campbell | first2=Larry | journal=Total Quality Management & Business Excellence | volume=31 | issue=7–8 | pages=761–776 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>

==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)

==KM technologies==
Knowledge management (KM) technology can be categorised:
* [[Collaborative software]]([[Groupware]])—Software that facilitates collaboration and sharing of organisational information. Such applications provide tools for [[threaded discussion]]s, [[document sharing]], organisation-wide uniform email, and other collaboration-related features.
* [[Workflow system]]s—Systems that allow the representation of processes associated with the creation, use and maintenance of organisational knowledge, such as the process of creating and utilise forms and documents.
* [[Content management]] and [[document management]] systems—Software systems that automate the process of creating web content and/or documents. Roles such as editors, graphic designers, writers and producers can be explicitly modeled along with the tasks in the process and validation criteria. Commercial vendors started either to support documents or to support web content but as the Internet grew these functions merged and vendors now perform both functions.
* [[Enterprise portal]]s—Software that aggregates information across the entire organisation or for groups such as project teams.
* [[eLearning]]—Software that enables organisations to create customised training and education. This can include lesson plans, monitoring progress and online classes.
* Planning and [[Appointment scheduling software|scheduling software]]—Software that automates schedule creation and maintenance. The planning aspect can be integrated with [[project management software]].<ref name="19Harv" />
* [[Telepresence]]—Software that enables individuals to have virtual "face-to-face" meetings without assembling at one location. Videoconferencing is the most obvious example.
* [[Semantic technology]] such as [[Ontology (information science)|ontologies]]—Systems that encode meaning alongside data to give machines the ability to extract and infer information.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Davies |editor1-first=John |editor2-last=Grobelnik |editor2-first=Marko |editor3-last=Mladenić |editor3-first=Dunja |date=2009 |title=Semantic Knowledge Management: Integrating Ontology Management, Knowledge Discovery, and Human Language Technologies |location=Berlin |publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] |isbn=9783540888444 |oclc=312625476 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-88845-1}}</ref>

These categories overlap. Workflow, for example, is a significant aspect of content or document management systems, most of which have tools for developing enterprise portals.<ref name=16Gupta /><ref>{{cite book|last1=Rao|first1=Madanmohan|title=Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques|url=https://archive.org/details/knowledgemanagem00raom|url-access=limited|date=2005|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-0-7506-7818-6|pages=[https://archive.org/details/knowledgemanagem00raom/page/n23 3]–42}}</ref> 
 
Proprietary KM technology products such as [[HCL Notes]] (Previously Lotus Notes) defined proprietary formats for email, documents, forms, etc. The Internet drove most vendors to adopt Internet formats. [[Open-source software|Open-source]] and [[freeware]] tools for the creation of [[blog]]s and [[wiki]]s now enable capabilities that used to require expensive commercial tools.<ref name=21TLO /><ref name=22Andrus>{{cite journal|last=Calvin|first=D. Andrus|title=The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community|journal=Studies in Intelligence|year=2005|volume=49|issue=3|ssrn=755904}}</ref>

KM is driving the adoption of tools that enable organisations to work at the semantic level,<ref name=26Cap>{{cite journal|last=Capozzi|first=Marla M.|title=Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology|journal=First Monday|year=2007|volume=12|issue=6|doi=10.5210/fm.v12i6.1871 |doi-access=free }}</ref> as part of the [[Semantic Web]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Berners-Lee |first1=Tim |first2=James |last2=Hendler |first3=Ora |last3=Lassila |title=The Semantic Web A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities |journal=Scientific American |date=May 17, 2001 |url=http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34 |volume=284 |issue=5 |pages=34–43 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130424071228/http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html |archive-date=April 24, 2013 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Some commentators have argued that after many years the Semantic Web has failed to see widespread adoption,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bakke |first1=Sturla |last2=ygstad |first2=Bendik |date=May 2009 |title=Two emerging technologies: a comparative analysis of Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web |journal=CONF-IRM 2009 Proceedings |issue=28 |url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2009/28 |quote=Our research question is: how do we explain the surprising success of Web 2.0 and the equally surprising non-fulfillment of the Semantic Web. Building on a case study approach we conducted a in depth comparative analysis of the two emerging technologies. We propose two conclusions. First, traditional top-down management of an emerging global technology has proved not to be effective in the case of the Semantic Web and Web 2.0, and second, the success for such global technologies is mainly associated with bootstrapping an already installed base. |access-date=2017-09-05 |archive-date=2017-09-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170906040756/http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2009/28/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Grimes |first=Seth |date=7 January 2014 |title=Semantic Web business: going nowhere slowly |url=https://www.informationweek.com/software/information-management/semantic-web-business-going-nowhere-slowly/d/d-id/1113323 |magazine=[[InformationWeek]] |access-date=5 September 2017 |quote=SemWeb is a narrowly purposed replica of a subset of the World Wide Web. It's useful for information enrichment in certain domains, via a circumscribed set of tools. However, the SemWeb offers a vanishingly small benefit to the vast majority of businesses. The vision persists but is unachievable; the business reality of SemWeb is going pretty much nowhere.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Cagle |first=Kurt |date=3 July 2016 |title=Why the Semantic Web has failed |url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-semantic-web-has-failed-kurt-cagle |publisher=[[LinkedIn]] |access-date=5 September 2017 |quote=This may sound like heresy, but my personal belief is that the semantic web has failed. Not in "just give it a few more years and it'll catch on" or "it's just a matter of tooling and editors". No, I'd argue that, as admirable as the whole goal of the semantic web is, it's just not working in reality. |archive-date=19 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119084025/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-semantic-web-has-failed-kurt-cagle |url-status=live }}</ref> while other commentators have argued that it has been a success.<ref>{{cite news |last=Zaino |first=Jennifer |date=23 September 2014 |title=The Semantic Web's rocking, and there ain't no stopping it now |url=http://www.dataversity.net/semantic-webs-rocking-aint-stopping-now/ |newspaper=Dataversity |access-date=5 September 2017 |quote=Make no mistake about it: The semantic web has been a success and that's not about to stop now. That was essentially the message delivered by W3C Data Activity Lead Phil Archer, during his keynote address celebrating the semantic web's ten years of achievement at last month's Semantic Technology & Business Conference in San Jose. |archive-date=5 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905232820/http://www.dataversity.net/semantic-webs-rocking-aint-stopping-now/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Knowledge barriers ==
Just like knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, the term "knowledge barriers" is not a uniformly defined term and differs in its meaning depending on the author.<ref name=PaulinandSuneson2011/> Knowledge barriers can be associated with high costs for both companies and individuals.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dalkir |first=Kimiz |date=2005 |title=Knowledge management in theory and practice |pages=221, 276–289 |doi=10.4324/9780080547367 |isbn=9781136389757 |url=https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080547367 |access-date=May 1, 2022}}</ref><ref name=Riege2005>{{cite journal |last=Riege |first=Andreas |date=June 1, 2005 |title=Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider |journal=Journal of Knowledge Management |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=18–35 |doi=10.1108/13673270510602746 |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746 |access-date=May 2, 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Riege |first=Andreas |date=February 2007 |title=Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs |journal=Journal of Knowledge Management |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=48–67 |doi=10.1108/13673270710728231 |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728231 |access-date=May 2, 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
Knowledge barriers appear to have been used from at least three different perspectives in the literature:<ref name=PaulinandSuneson2011>{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286105137 |last1=Paulin |first1=Dan Theodor |last2=Suneson |first2=K |date=January 2011 |title=Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Barriers-Three Blurry Terms in KM |access-date=May 8, 2022}}</ref>
1) Missing knowledge about something as a result of barriers for the share or transfer of knowledge.
2) Insufficient knowledge based on the amount of education in a certain field or issue.
3) A unique individual or group of humans' perceptual system lacks adequate contact points or does not fit incoming information to use and transform it to knowledge.

== Knowledge retention ==
Knowledge retention is part of knowledge management. It helps convert tacit form of knowledge into an explicit form. It is a complex process which aims to reduce the knowledge loss in the organization.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bolisani|first1=Ettore|last2 = Bratianu|first2=Constantin|title=Generic Knowledge Strategies|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318234758|year=2018}}</ref> Knowledge retention is needed when expert knowledge workers leave the organization after a long career.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Levy|first=Moria|date=2011-01-01|title=Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss|url=https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111151974|journal=Journal of Knowledge Management|volume=15|issue=4|pages=582–600|doi=10.1108/13673271111151974|issn=1367-3270|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Retaining knowledge prevents losing intellectual capital.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Urbancova|first=Hana|date=2012-06-30|title=The Process of Knowledge Continuity Ensuring|url=http://www.cjournal.cz/index.php?hid=clanek&cid=94|journal=Journal of Competitiveness|volume=4|issue=2|pages=38–48|doi=10.7441/joc.2012.02.03|doi-access=free|access-date=2020-11-15|archive-date=2021-04-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210419213725/https://www.cjournal.cz/index.php?hid=clanek&cid=94|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to DeLong(2004) <ref>{{Cite book|last=Delong|first=DW|title=Lost Knowledge: Confronting the threat of aging workforce.|year=2004}}</ref> knowledge retention strategies are divided into four main categories:
* Human resources, processes and practices
* Knowledge transfer practices
* Knowledge recovery practices
* Information technologies used to capture, store and share knowledge.

Knowledge retention projects are usually introduced in three stages: decision making, planning and implementation. There are differences among researchers on the terms of the stages. For example, Dalkir talks about knowledge capture, sharing and acquisition and Doan et al. introduces initiation, implementation and evaluation.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dalkir|first=Kimiz|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780080547367|title=Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice|date=2013-09-05|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-08-054736-7|edition=1|language=en|doi=10.4324/9780080547367|access-date=2020-11-15|archive-date=2020-10-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031081533/https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780080547367|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|date=2011|chapter-url=http://www.scitepress.org/DigitalLibrary/Link.aspx?doi=10.5220/0003632003060311|location=Paris, France|publisher=SciTePress – Science and Technology Publications|pages=306–311|doi=10.5220/0003632003060311|isbn=978-989-8425-81-2|access-date=2020-11-15|archive-date=2018-06-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180602174854/http://www.scitepress.org/DigitalLibrary/Link.aspx?doi=10.5220/0003632003060311|url-status=live | chapter=A Reference Model for Knowledge Retention within Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises | title=Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing | url=https://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/11644 }}</ref> Furthermore, Levy introduces three steps (scope, transfer, integration) but also recognizes a "zero stage" for initiation of the project.<ref name=":0" />

== Knowledge audit ==
A knowledge audit is a comprehensive assessment of an organization's knowledge assets, including its explicit and tacit knowledge, intellectual capital, expertise, and skills. The goal of a knowledge audit is to identify the organization's knowledge strengths and gaps, and to develop strategies for leveraging knowledge to improve performance and competitiveness. Knowledge audit helps ensure that an organization's knowledge management activities are heading in the right direction. It also reduces the making of incorrect decisions. Term knowledge audit is often used interchangeably with information audit, although information audit is slightly narrower in scope.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Skyrme |first=David |title=Capitalizing on Knowledge |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |isbn=9780750650113}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Malekolkalami |first1=Mila |last2=Sharif |first2=Atefeh |title=A Systematic Review of Knowledge Audit Models during 2016 to 2020 |journal=International Journal of Information Science and Management |year=2022 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=227–244}}</ref>

The requirement and significance of a knowledge audit can vary widely among different industries and companies. For instance, within the software development industry, knowledge audits can play a pivotal role due to the inherently knowledge-intensive nature of the work. This contrasts with sectors like manufacturing, where physical assets often take more important role. The difference arises from the fact that in software development companies, the skills, expertise, and intellectual capital, often overshadow the value of physical assets.<ref name="Hand2019">{{Cite book |last=Hand |first=P. |year=2019 |title=Knowledge assets and knowledge audits |location=Bingley, England |publisher=Emerald Publishing}}</ref>

Knowledge audits provide opportunities for organizations to improve their management of knowledge assets, with the goal of enhancing organizational effectiveness and efficiency. By conducting a knowledge audit, organizations can raise awareness of knowledge assets as primary factors of production and as critical capital assets in today's knowledge economy. The process of a knowledge audit allows organizations to gain a deeper understanding of their knowledge assets. This includes identifying and defining these assets, understanding their behavior and properties, and describing how, when, why, and where they are used in business processes.<ref name="Hand2019" />

==Knowledge protection==

Knowledge protection refers to behaviors and actions taken to protect the knowledge from unwanted opportunistic behavior for example appropriation or imitation of the knowledge.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Norman |first=Patricia |title=Protecting Knowledge in Strategic Alliances: Resource and Relational Characteristics |date=2002 |doi=10.1016/S1047-8310(02)00050-0}}</ref>

Knowledge protection is used to prevent the knowledge to be unintentionally available or useful for competitors. Knowledge protection can be for example a patent, copyright, trademark, lead time or secrecy held by a company or an individual.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sofka |first1=Wolfgang |last2=Edlira |first2=Shehu |last3=de Faria |first3=Pedro |title=Multinational Subsidiary Knowledge Protection - Do Mandates and Clusters Matter? |journal=Research Policy |date=2014 |volume=43 |issue=8 |pages=1320–1333 |doi=10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.006}}</ref>

=== Knowledge protection methods ===
There are various methods for knowledge protection and those methods are often divided into two categories by their formality: formal protection and informal protection.<ref name="gast2019">{{cite journal |last1=Gast |first1=Johanna |last2=Gundolf |first2=Katherine |last3=Harms |first3=Rainer |last4=Matos Collado |first4=Elvin |title=Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge? |journal=Industrial Marketing Management |year=2019 |volume=77 |pages=65–74 |doi=10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.12.007|s2cid=169838694 |url=https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/124075017/1_s2.0_S0019850118303298_main.pdf }}</ref><ref name=":2"/><ref name="ws2023">{{cite book |chapter=Methods of Knowledge Protection |chapter-url=https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9781848169616_0008 |website=World Scientific |series=Series on Technology Management |year=2012 |volume=21 |pages=89–91 |doi=10.1142/9781848169616_0008 |isbn=978-1-84816-960-9 |access-date=9 May 2023 |archive-date=10 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510095337/https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9781848169616_0008 |url-status=live |title=Workbook for Opening Innovation |publisher=Imperial College Press }}</ref><ref name="bolisani2013">{{cite journal |last1=Bolisani |first1=Ettore |last2=Paiola |first2=Marco |last3=Scarso |first3=Enrico |title=Knowledge protection in knowledge-intensive business services |journal=Journal of Intellectual Capital |date=1 January 2013 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=192–211 |doi=10.1108/14691931311323841}}</ref> Occasionally a third category is introduced, semi-formal protection, which includes contracts and trade-secrets.<ref name="ws2023"/><ref name="bolisani2013" /><ref name="stefan2017">{{cite journal |last1=Stefan |first1=Ioana |last2=Bengtsson |first2=Lars |title=Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process |journal=Technological Forecasting & Social Change |date=2017 |volume=120 |pages=252–260 |doi=10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014|s2cid=85557336 |doi-access=free }}</ref>&nbsp; These semi-formal methods are also usually placed under formal methods.

Organizations often use a combination of formal and informal knowledge protection methods to achieve comprehensive protection of their knowledge assets.<ref name="bolisani2013"/> The formal and informal knowledge protection mechanisms are different in nature, and they have their benefits and drawbacks. In many organizations, the challenge is to find a good mix of measures that works for the organization.<ref name=":2"/>

==== Formal methods ====
Formal knowledge protection practices can take various forms, such as legal instruments or formal procedures and structures, to control which knowledge is shared and which is protected.<ref name="gast2019"/> Formal knowledge protection methods include for example: patents, trademarks, copyrights and licensing.<ref name="gast2019"/><ref name="ws2023"/><ref name="estrada2016">{{cite journal |last1=Estrada |first1=Isabel |last2=Faems |first2=Dries |last3=de Faria |first3=Pedro |title=Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms |journal=Industrial Marketing Management |date=2016 |volume=53 |pages=56–65 |doi=10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013|url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/80563452/Coopetition_and_product_innovation_performance_The_role_of_internal.pdf }}</ref>

Technical solutions to protect the knowledge fall also under the category of formal knowledge protection. Formal knowledge protection from technical viewpoint includes technical access constraints and protection of communication channels, systems, and storage.<ref name=":2"/>

While knowledge may eventually become public in some form or another, formal protection mechanisms are necessary to prevent competitors from directly utilizing it for their own gain.<ref name=":2"/> Formal protection methods are particularly effective in protecting established knowledge that can be codified and embodied in final products or services.<ref name="estrada2016"/>

==== Informal methods ====
Informal knowledge protection methods refer to the use of informal mechanisms such as human resource management practices or secrecy to protect knowledge assets. There is notable amount of knowledge that cannot be protected by formal methods, and for which more informal protection might be the most efficient option.<ref name="olander2014"/>

Informal knowledge protection methods can take various forms, such as: secrecy, social norms and values, complexity, lead-time and Human resource management.<ref name="gast2019"/><ref name="estrada2016"/><ref name="telg2023">{{cite journal |last1=Telg |first1=Nina |last2=Lokshin |first2=Boris |last3=Letterie |first3=Wilko |title=How formal and informal intellectual property protection matters for firms' decision to engage in coopetition: The role of environmental dynamism and competition intensity |journal=Technovation |date=2023 |volume=124 |page=102751 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102751|s2cid=257908051 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="olander2014">{{cite journal |last1=Olander |first1=Heidi |last2=Vanhala |first2=Mika |last3=Hurmelinna-Laukkanen |first3=Pia |title=Reasons for choosing mechanisms to protect knowledge and innovations |journal=Management Decision |date=2014 |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=207–229 |doi=10.1108/MD-11-2012-0791|url=https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/160013 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Informal knowledge protection methods protect knowledge assets for example by making it difficult for outsiders to access and understand the knowledge within the boundaries of the organization.<ref name="telg2023"/> Informal protection methods are more effective for protecting knowledge that is complex or difficult to express, articulate, or codify.<ref name="telg2023"/><ref name="olander2014"/>

=== Balancing knowledge protection and knowledge sharing ===
The balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection is a critical dilemma faced by organizations today.<ref name=":1">{{Citation |last1=Thalmann |first1=Stefan |title=Balancing Knowledge Protection and Sharing to Create Digital Innovations |date=2018 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-73546-7_10 |work=Knowledge Management in Digital Change |pages=171–188 |editor-last=North |editor-first=Klaus |access-date=2023-05-09 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-73546-7_10 |isbn=978-3-319-73545-0 |last2=Ilvonen |first2=Ilona |series=Progress in IS |editor2-last=Maier |editor2-first=Ronald |editor3-last=Haas |editor3-first=Oliver|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Ilvonen |first1=Ilona |last2=Thalmann |first2=Stefan |last3=Manhart |first3=Markus |last4=Sillaber |first4=Christian |date=2018-04-03 |title=Reconciling digital transformation and knowledge protection: a research agenda |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14778238.2018.1445427 |journal=Knowledge Management Research & Practice |language=en |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=235–244 |doi=10.1080/14778238.2018.1445427 |s2cid=196033786 |issn=1477-8238 |access-date=2023-05-09 |archive-date=2023-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509121244/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14778238.2018.1445427 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> While sharing knowledge can lead to innovation, collaboration, and competitive advantage, protecting knowledge can prevent it from being misused, misappropriated, or lost.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Olander |first1=Heidi |last2=Hurmelinna-Laukkanen |first2=Pia |last3=Mähönen |first3=Jukka |date=September 2009 |title=WHAT'S SMALL SIZE GOT TO DO WITH IT? PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL ASSETS IN SMEs |url=https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919609002339 |journal=International Journal of Innovation Management |language=en |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=349–370 |doi=10.1142/S1363919609002339 |issn=1363-9196 |access-date=2023-05-09 |archive-date=2023-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509121249/https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919609002339 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Thus, the need for organizational learning must be balanced with the need to protect organisations' intellectual property, especially whilst cooperating with external partners.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Hurmelinna-Laukkanen |first=Pia |date=2011-08-02 |title=Enabling collaborative innovation – knowledge protection for knowledge sharing |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14601061111148816/full/html |journal=European Journal of Innovation Management |language=en |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=303–321 |doi=10.1108/14601061111148816 |issn=1460-1060 |access-date=2023-05-09 |archive-date=2023-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509121246/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14601061111148816/full/html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The role of information security is crucial in helping organisations protect their assets whilst still enabling the benefits of information sharing.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> By implementing effective knowledge management strategies, organizations can protect valuable [[intellectual property]] while also encouraging the sharing of relevant knowledge across teams and departments.<ref name=":1" /> This active balancing act requires careful consideration of factors such as the level of openness, the identification of core knowledge areas, and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for knowledge transfer and collaboration.<ref name=":1" /> Finding the right balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection is a complex issue that requires a nuanced understanding of the trade-off's involved and the context in which knowledge is shared or protected.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":4" />

=== Knowledge protection risks ===
Protecting knowledge cannot be considered without its risks. Here are listed four of the major risks associated with knowledge protection:

* Overprotection: One of the major risks of knowledge protection is overprotection. Overprotection occurs when intellectual property rights are too broad or too strict, preventing others from building upon existing ideas and stifling innovation. As noted by Rouyre and Fernandez,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rouyre |first=Andrey |title=Managing Knowledge Sharing-Protecting Tensions in Coupled Innovation Projects among Several Competitors|publisher=SAGE Journals |year=2019 }}</ref> overprotection can have a chilling effect on follow-on innovation, which is particularly problematic in fields where innovation is cumulative.
* Misappropriation: Another risk associated with knowledge protection is misappropriation. Misappropriation refers to the unauthorized use or theft of intellectual property. This can occur when confidential information is leaked, trade secrets are stolen, or patents are infringed upon. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization,<ref name="WIPO 2019">{{Cite book |last=WIPO |title=Understanding Intellectual Property |publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization |year=2019}}</ref> misappropriation can result in significant financial losses for individuals and organizations.
* Infringement claims: Intellectual property owners can also face risks associated with infringement claims. Infringement occurs when someone uses intellectual property without permission or authorization, and the owner of the intellectual property files a lawsuit. Infringement claims can be costly and time-consuming and can result in damage to an individual's or organization's reputation. As noted by Law Insider's Knowledge of infringement Sample Clauses,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Law Insider |title=Knowledge of Infringement Sample Clauses |publisher=Law Insider |year=2019}}</ref> infringement claims can also result in financial penalties and even criminal prosecution.
* Inadequate protection: Inadequate protection of intellectual property is also a significant risk. This occurs when intellectual property owners fail to properly protect their knowledge, such as by failing to obtain patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Inadequate protection can result in the loss of intellectual property rights and can make it difficult for individuals and organizations to enforce their rights in court. As noted by the WIPO,<ref name="WIPO 2019"/> inadequate protection can also make it easier for others to copy or steal intellectual property.

In conclusion, protecting knowledge is crucial to promote innovation and creativity, but it is not without its risks. Overprotection, misappropriation, infringement claims, and inadequate protection are all risks associated with knowledge protection. Individuals and organizations should take steps to protect their intellectual property while also considering the potential risks and benefits of such protection.

==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=22em}}
*[[Archives management]]
*[[Customer knowledge]]
*[[Dynamic knowledge repository]]
*''[[Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management]]''
*[[Ignorance management]]
*[[Information governance]]
*[[Information management]]
*''[[Journal of Knowledge Management]]''
*''[[Journal of Knowledge Management Practice]]''
*[[Knowledge cafe]]
*[[Knowledge community]]
*[[Knowledge ecosystem]]
*[[Knowledge engineering]]
*[[Knowledge management software]]
*[[Knowledge modeling]]
*[[Knowledge transfer]]
*[[Knowledge translation]]
*[[Legal case management]]
*[[Personal knowledge management]]
{{Div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Commons category}}
<!-- As there is now a dmoz directory link here, there is likely no need for any further links. If you feel an additional link is necessary, please bring it up on this article's talk page first -->
<!-- Also, the list of references and articles has been removed and replaced with inline citations. If you feel an additional link is necessary, please bring it up on this article's talk page first as well; many thanks! -->
<!--========================({{No More Links}})============================
    | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA  |
    | IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS NOR SHOULD IT BE USED FOR ADVERTISING. |
    |                                                                     |
    |           Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED.         |
    | See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.  |
    |                                                                     |
    | If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or   |
    | replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
    | to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org)   |
    | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.         |
    =======================({{No More Links}})=============================-->
<!-- Please do not change the spelling of the English variations of words to their American versions. This has already been discussed on this article's talk page. -->

{{Clear}}
{{Knowledge management}}
{{Management}}
{{Semantic Web}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Knowledge management| ]]
[[Category:Management cybernetics]]
[[Category:Information systems]]
[[Category:Business terms]]
[[Category:Hypertext]]