A strategy-based ontology of knowledge management technologies

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to distinguish and describe knowledge management (KM) technologies according to their support for strategy. Design/methodology/approach – This study employed an ontology development method to describe the relations between technology, KM and strategy, and to categorize available KM technologies according to those relations. Ontologies are formal specifications of concepts in a domain and their inter-relationships, and can be used to facilitate common understanding and knowledge sharing. The study focused particularly on two sub-domains of the KM field: KM strategies and KM technologies. Findings – ’’KM strategy’’ has three meanings in the literature: approach to KM, knowledge strategy, and KM implementation strategy. Also, KM technologies support strategy via KM initiatives based on particular knowledge strategies and approaches to KM. The study distinguishes three types of KM technologies: component technologies, KM applications, and business applications. They all can be described in terms of ’’creation’’ and ’’transfer’’ knowledge strategies, and ’’personalization’’ and ’’codification’’ approaches to KM. Research limitations/implications – The resulting framework suggests that KM technologies can be analyzed better in the context of KM initiatives, instead of the usual approach associating them with knowledge processes. KM initiatives provide the background and contextual elements necessary to explain technology adoption and use. Practical implications – The framework indicates three alternative modes for organizational adoption of KM technologies: custom development of KM systems from available component technologies; purchase of KM-specific applications; or purchase of business-driven applications that embed KM functionality. It also lists adequate technologies and provides criteria for selection in any of the cases. Originality/value – Among the many studies analyzing the role of technology in KM, an association with strategy has been missing. This paper contributes to filling this gap, integrating diverse contributions via a clearer definition of concepts and a visual representation of their relationships. This use of ontologies as a method, instead of an artifact, is also uncommon in the literature.