Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to look at how knowledge management (KM) has entered into a new phase where consolidation and harmonisation of concepts is required. Some first standards have been published in Europe and Australia in order to foster a common understanding of terms and concepts. The aim of this study was to analyse KM frameworks from research and practice regarding their model elements and try to discover differences and correspondences. Design/methodology/approach A total of 160 KM frameworks from science, practice, associations and standardization bodies have been collected worldwide. These frameworks have been analysed regarding the use and understanding of the term knowledge, the terms used to describe the knowledge process activities and the factors influencing the success of knowledge management. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods have been applied. Findings The result shows that despite the wide range of terms used in the KM frameworks an underlying consensus was detected regarding the basic categories used to describe the knowledge management activities and the critical success factors of KM. Nevertheless regarding the core term knowledge there is still a need to develop an improved understanding in research and practice. Originality/value The first quantitative and qualitative analysis of 160 KM frameworks from different origin worldwide.
Peter Heisig (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: