The Information Society, 18:47 64, 2002

c 2002 Taylor & Francis

Copyright
0197-2243 /02 $12.00 + .00

Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework

C. W. Holsapple
School of Management, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA

K. D. Joshi
School of Accounting, Information Systems, and Business Law, College of Business
and Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington , USA

The world in general, and the business world in particular, is experiencing a paradigm shift: a shift toward
knowledge-based organizations (Holsapple & Whinston,
1987 ) in a knowledge-base d society (Tof er, 1990;
Drucker, 1993 ). In such organizations , knowledge is regarded as a crucial resource, and harnessing knowledgeprocessing skills to maximize the value of this resource
is recognized as a paramount concern. An organizations
knowledge resources are complex and multifaceted, ranging from tacit components to knowledge that is explicitly represented (Nonaka, 1991 ), and including descriptive
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and reasoning knowledge (Holsapple & Whinston, 1987 ). Both computer and
human participants in an organization possess various
skills for manipulating its knowledge resources. This portfolio of skills and how they are deployed in manipulating available knowledge resources go a long way toward
determining the nature of an organizations innovation s
and outputs, and hence its competitivenes s in a dynamic
environment.
It is clear that knowledge resources need to be carefully
managed rather than being left to serendipity (Amidon,
1996 ). Documented cases of organizations that have
achieved some success in this include Chaparral Steel,
Honda, Canon, Buckman Laboratories, and Skandia
(Rifkin, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Leonard-Barton, 1995;
Nonaka, 1991 ). However, as Nonaka (1991 ) points out,
despite all the talk about brainpower and intellectual capital, few managers grasp the true nature of the knowledgecreating companylet alone how to manage it. Zack and
Serino (1996 ) maintain that While the business case for
knowledge management is becoming widely accepted, few
organizations today are fully capable of developing and
leveraging critical organizationa l knowledge to improve
their performance.

It is widely claimed by a number of business and academic

gurus that in order for organizations to have a lasting competitive advantage they will have to be knowledge driven. If knowledge
is viewed as a resource that is critical to an organizations survival
and success in the global market, then like any other resource it
demands good management. However, the bulk of organizations
still have not approached knowledge management (KM) activity
formally or deliberately. The cause for this inattention could be
that most organizations are still struggling to comprehend the KM
concept. To ease the struggle, the fundamental issue of identifying
salient characteristics of KM phenomena needs to be addressed.
This article helps address this need by introducing a threefold
descriptive framework that identi es and characterizes the main
elements of KM phenomena and their relationships. The rst
component provides a generic description of an organizations
knowledge resources. A second component introduces elemental
knowledge manipulation activities an organization performs in
dealing with those resources. The third component identi es major
in uences that impact an organizations conduct of KM. Results of
a survey to assess the framework are reported. They indicate general satisfaction with the framework.
Keywords

chief knowledge of cer, framework, knowledge-based

organization, knowledge management, knowledge
resources

Received 12 August 1997; accepted 28 February 2000.

The authors are grateful for the suggestions made by the editor-inchief, associate editor, and referees. Authors are listed alphabetically.
Address correspondence to K. D. Joshi, Todd 240B, School of Accounting, Information Systems, and Business Law, College of Business
and Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164,
USA. E-mail: joshi@wsu.edu

47

48

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

One reason why the full potential of deliberate, systematic knowledge management (KM ) efforts has yet to be
widely ful lled is that organizations are still struggling to
comprehend the KM concept. Anne Stuart, senior editor of
CIO; writes, Many managers would be hard pressed to explain precisely and concisely, what this evolving business
trend (KM ) means. What they probably do know is knowledge management has been billed as a critical tool for the
21st century corporation . : : : And they know it is something they just have to get tooeven if they dont know
exactly what it is (Stuart, 1996 ). To foster a common
understandin g of what it is, we need to address the fundamental issue of identifying the salient characteristics of
KM phenomena in organizations. This is a prerequisite for
systematic research into the nature and possibilitie s of KM,
as well as for easing the emergence of KM into practice.
This article advances a framework that identi es key
characteristics to consider in the study and implementa tion of KM. It is the result of synthesizin g elements from
existing descriptive frameworks and related KM literature to yield a relatively complete, uni ed perspective.
The framework is comprised of three main components.
The rst of these provides a taxonomy that identi es the
kinds of knowledge resources that an organization can
have and manage. The second component identi es basic
types of activities that can be used to manipulate an organizations knowledge resources. An organizations participants (human and computer-based ) use their knowledge handling skills to execute these manipulation activities,
producing and consuming knowledge ows in the process. The frameworks third component characterizes three
classes of in uences that shape the conduct of knowledge
management in an organization (e.g., they in uence the
con guration of manipulation activities used to satisfy
knowledge needs ).
We begin with a brief background discussion of the nature of knowledge and the need for descriptive KM frameworks. Next, the threefold framework is described. As its
elements are introduced, they are tied to the KM literature
and illustrated with examples. In addition to this conceptual grounding, some external validation is then presented
in results of a survey to assess the threefold frameworks
completeness, accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. We close
with a description of future research avenues emanating
from the framework.
BACKGROUND
Throughout the ages, philosophers , scientists, and others
have debated the nature of knowledge. Although it is not
our intent to review or add to this debate, a brief consideration of knowledge provides useful background for
appreciating the framework.

According to Newell (1982 ), knowledge is embedded

in usable representations. Simply put, representations are
patterns. This includes patterns of materials, energy (e.g.,
sound, light electro-magnetic ), actions, behaviors, and
other symbolic systems. Such representations convey
knowledge to the extent they are usable by some processor (i.e., a knower ). That is, knowledge is relative to
the knower; one processor may attain great utility from
the knowledge embedded in a representation that another
processor is unable to use (Holsapple & Whinston,
1996 ).
The KM framework advanced here is not oriented toward any particular kind of representation or processor.
It admits the possibility of both explicit representations
(e.g., the words displayed here ) and tacit representations
(e.g., mental states ). It also admits the possibilit y of both
human-based and computer-based processors. However,
its focus is not on enumerating types of representations,
transformations of representations , or the mechanisms for
processing a particular type of representation. Its focus is
on identifying classes of knowledge resources, basic activities for manipulating them, and factors in uencing the
conduct of KM.
Commentators on the knowledge management scene
often strive to draw distinction s between the notions of
data, information, and knowledge. Some of these same
commentators, as well as others, proceed to use the terms
knowledge and information interchangeably. Still others
argue that knowledge management is simply a renaming
of information management. The framework is not dependent or predicated on any of these views; nor is its purpose
one of grappling with such distinctions . However, the manner in which the framework is understood and applied is
dependent on ones view of knowledge.
Like much of the KM literature, the framework probably furnishes the least value to those who equate knowledge with information. For those who treat knowledge and
information as mutually exclusive, the framework can be
applied to whatever is regarded as being in the knowledge
category. Between these two extremes is the view that
regards information as a kind of knowledge. A progression of several knowledge states including data, information, and knowledge has been identi ed by van Lohuizen
(1986 ); the progression proceeds from the least re ned,
least focused, least directly usable state of knowledge (i.e.,
data ) through states that are increasingly re ned, focused,
and directly usable. A researcher applying the framework
can consider knowledge to encompass all such states,
or can choose to apply it to some subset of these
states.
Machlup (1982 ) contends that all information is knowledge, but not the reverse; knowledge is more than just
information. For example, one knowledge taxonomy

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

distinguishe s among descriptive, procedural, and reasoning knowledge (Holsapple, 1995 ). Descriptive knowledge,
commonly called information, describes the state of some
world (e.g., past, current, predicted, hypothetical ). In its
various states from raw data to structured information,
descriptive knowledge has long been the focus of information management and information systems for representing and processing it (Holsapple & Whinston, 1988 ).
In contrast, procedural knowledge is concerned with how
to do something (e.g., processes, techniques ) and reasoning knowledge indicates what conclusion is valid in
a particular situation (e.g., cause-and-effect principles,
correlations, heuristics ). Like descriptive knowledge,
these exist in various gradations of re nement and
usability.
An organizations descriptive , procedural, and reasoning knowledge is explicitly and/or tacitly represented and
processed by human and/or computer-based participants
in the organization. Although the framework does not incorporate or commit to this view, we suggest that such a
view is suf ciently inclusive to be a helpful basis for understanding and applying the frameworks characterizations
of what an organizations knowledge resources are, what
activities can be exercised in manipulating those resources,
and what factors in uence the organizations conduct of
KM.
In the absence of a comprehensive framework, a elds
progress is but a fortunate combination of circumstances,
research is fumbling in the dark, and disseminatio n of
knowledge is a cumbersome process (Vatter, 1947 ). Although a few descriptive frameworks have been posited
for KM (e.g., Nonaka, 1994; Wiig, 1993 ), each seems to
address only certain KM elements. A comparative analysis of such frameworks shows that individuall y, none
describes the full scope of KM phenomena (nor is this
the stated intent of any ); collectively, it is not obvious
how they might t together and it appears that they overlook some KM issues reported elsewhere in the literature
(Holsapple & Joshi, 1999a ). A more comprehensive descriptive framework for characterizing KM phenomena
can bene t both researchers and practitioners by furnishing an organized foundation for future progress in understanding the conduct of KM.
Here, we help address this need by introducing a descriptive framework that identi es and characterizes the
main elements of KM phenomena and their relationships .
A descriptive framework provides a perspective for fully
understanding (as well as organizing ) concepts in a uni ed
fashion. It describes a phenomenon in the form of key factors, constructs, or variables and their relationship s (Miles
& Huberman, 1994 ). One nding from a survey evaluating
the threefold framework introduced later in this paper is
that respondents are unanimous in their view that a KM

49

framework is needed; representative respondent comments

about this need are shown in Table 1.
A THREEFOLD KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
For many years organizations have formally captured and
managed explicit knowledge by way of computer systems
such as management information systems, decision support systems, and expert systems. One premise of this article is that such technologies are just a portion of what
is possible and what is necessary for effective KM. A
second premise of this article is that understandin g KM
phenomena depends on (1 ) characterizing knowledge resources that need to be managed, (2 ) identifying and explaining activities involved in manipulating these knowledge resources, and (3 ) recognizing factors that in uence
the conduct of knowledge management. These three aspects correspond to components of the descriptive framework introduced here: a knowledge resources component,
an activities component, and a KM in uences component.
The knowledge resources are an organizations reservoirs
of knowledge; this knowledge (e.g., descriptive , procedural, reasoning ) is embedded in usable representations
(e.g., tacit, explicit ). The knowledge manipulation activities are elementary functions an organization performs in
processing its knowledge resources. The KM in uences
are factors that affect the conduct or manifestation of KM
in an organization.
A major objective of this framework is generality. It is
not geared toward the description of KM within any particular organization, but rather can be applied to the study
of KM phenomena in diverse organizations . As such, its
elements involve a certain level of conceptual abstraction
that becomes more concrete only when applied to the study
of a particular organization. As the elements of each component are introduced, we ground the descriptions in examples. These examples are included to illustrate concepts
and are by no means exhaustive.
In creating the framework, pains were taken to ensure
that its concepts accommodate features found in prior KM
frameworks, plus ideas gleaned from the KM literature at
large (Holsapple & Joshi, 1999a ). This involved an iterative process of synthesis in the direction of a unifying and
more complete view of KM. In keeping with the objective
of generality, the framework recognizes that technology
can play an important role in KM, but does not emphasize
its role relative to nontechnologica l aspects. That is, the
framework is applicable regardless of whether one wants
to use it from a technological , human, or hybrid vantage
point.
A survey was conducted to assess the threefold framework in terms of its completeness, accuracy, clarity, and

50

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

TABLE 1
The need for a KM framework: Survey respondents comments about the need for a KM framework
The framework is important for the practical & theoretical structure it can provide. It can provide a context
for all work in the eld.
It is important to create (or begin the process of converging on) a consensual de nition
of the phenomenon so that we can begin to perform normal science and start
to coordinate accumulated research.
A framework helps people understand what KM is, what knowledge activities are involved
and how the knowledge activities affect organizational effectiveness. Most of the confusion
about knowledge management results from the lack of a comprehensive framework.
This framework gives academicians and practitioners a common set of well-de ned constructs
for research and practice in KM.
A framework can help place peoples efforts in a bigger perspective. It can also help both practitioners
and researchers have a way to identify if they have covered all the appropriate issues pertaining
to their situation.
For (a) awareness and understanding, (b) common communication, (c) scoping of initiatives and projects,
(d) further development of the eld. It is especially important at this early stage in the development
of the practice and theory of KM to be able to discuss what it is and is not; what entities and activities
it is concerned with (as you have done). The importance of models and frameworks in the communication
of subtle issues, such as one involved in KM, can hardly be overstated.
A framework facilitates communication.
It is also extremely useful to have a common and understood vocabulary.
A beginning for purposeful research in an emerging area.
(1) Need to be able to de ne for students the range of activities that they will be prepared for,
if they concentrate in KM. (2) Clari es what people mean when they talk about KM
and intellectual property. (3) Reveals the culture of KM-ers to those of
us who study this information renaissance as a social phenomena.
You must be able to visualize it in order to manage it and continuously improve it. Managing knowledge
is not newwhat is new and exciting is the development of a framework
and language that allows us to talk/study it.
Much confusion exists surrounding the notion of knowledge management. Most of this is based on a lack
of clarity with respect to the de nition and domain of KM. A framework is needed that de nes the boundary
of KM as well as its components.
We tend to have (create) tacit frameworks, so an explicit one helps in re ection and communication
in a wider circle.
(1) Determines scope of action/management. (2) Acts as visual support to aid communications.
(3) Can be a diagnosis/resource allocation tool.
To understand how big a problem is and that it is necessary to consider it in global dimension. To identify all resources,
actors and in uences involved in the process. Framework helps to understands all (quite all) facets of KM
to make a difference between true KM and just marketing keywords.
The KM label is being applied to everything and anything by consultants and scholars looking to get
in on the hottest issues of the day. We need to reclaim the concept and provide some in uential foundation,
rigor, and consistency. On the other hand, we must realize that something as basic and fundamental as knowledge
cannot be captured by a single view.
It matters not what framework or architecture you use, but having one enables systematic knowledge identi cation
and leverage.
The experience I have with my clients is that until they have a coherent vision (the perspective based on an overall
framework model), they cannot focus on priorities, identify how to coordinate cross-organizational efforts,
[focus] on identifying overall long-term bene ts.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

conciseness. Survey results indicate an appreciable degree

of success for these criteria. They also suggest the possibility of future enhancements. Future investigation s will
determine the extent to which the threefold framework
serves to unify viewpoints and ideas in the eld, the degree of its descriptive power, its utility in the generation
of KM theory and research hypothesis , its value as a guide
to consideration s that practitioner s need to address, and
its contributio n as a stepping stone in the stimulation of
future KM frameworks.
The Knowledge Resource Component
A conventional view of an organization sees it as having three main types of resources: material, human, and
monetary (Miner, 1978 ). A knowledge-based view recognizes knowledge as another major organizationa l resource
(Holsapple & Whinston, 1987 ). Indeed, Peter Drucker
(1993 ) and others have proclaimed that knowledge is the
most important of an organizations resources. Figure 1a

FIG. 1a.

51

portrays this knowledge-centric view of an organization.

Arrows in the gure indicate that knowledge resources
impact the other three resources and the external environment, and vice versa. More broadly each type of resource
can affect each of the other resources as well as the external
environment, and vice versa (e.g., there can be tradeoffs,
exchanges, substitutions , synergies ).
Figure 1a also highlights one of these impacts by recognizing the existence of knowledge management skills in
the organizations participants. The dashed lines are meant
to suggest that some of these skills are human resources
(e.g., a persons cognitive skills ), while others may be material resources (e.g., a computer systems processing abilities ). That is, an organization can have both human and
machine-based knowledge workers each having certain
capabilities for representing and processing knowledge
(Holsapple et al., 1996 ). An organizations knowledge resources can be exploited only as far as its participants
knowledge manipulation skills permit. Conversely, the exercise of knowledge manipulation skills depends on what

Organizational resources.

52

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

FIG. 1b.

Types of knowledge resources.

knowledge resources are available in the organization and

its environment.
In Figure 1b, the knowledge-centric view of an organization is further developed to identify primary types
of knowledge resources. This constitutes the KM frameworks resource component. The issue of how participants
knowledge manipulation skills are exercised (i.e., channeled into a set of interrelated knowledge manipulation
activities ) is addressed later in discussion of the frameworks activities component. Knowledge can be stored,
embedded, or represented in an organization as any
of six distinct kinds of resources: (1 ) participants
knowledge, (2 ) culture, (3 ) infrastructure, (4 ) knowledge
artifacts, (5 ) purpose, and (6 ) strategy.
A researcher investigatin g knowledge management in a
particular organization can study any of these six resources
or dependencies among them. A practitioner likely would
be concerned with all six types of knowledge resources and
their interdependencies . Aside from the six types of knowledge resources within its boundaries, an organization has

access to knowledge existing in its environment. Although

it does not belong to an organization, it is a crucial source
for replenishing and augmenting an organizations knowledge resources. Both researchers and practitioners must
be cognizant of the relationship s between environmental
knowledge resources and the six types of organizational
knowledge resources.
Participants Knowledge. An organizations participants can be human resources (e.g., employees ) and/or
material resources (e.g., computer systems ). Each participant has certain knowledge management skills and a storehouse of knowledge. The knowledge that a participant
brings to bear in the execution of its role within an organization is a knowledge resource of that organization. Being the combination of such knowledge, an organizations
participant knowledge resource is thus affected by the arrival and departure of participants, participant learning, the
portion of each participants knowledge that is brought to
bear on organizationa l work, and the interrelationship s that

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

participants knowledge are allowed to have (e.g., by organizations infrastructure and culture ).
The portion of an employees knowledge that is used
in accomplishing work for an organization is a part of the
organizations participant knowledge. An organizations
knowledge can also be stored on computer systems, for
instance in a database or an expert system. For example,
General Electrics answer center, USA, has collected customers complaints in a database. This knowledge is part
of a system that aids operators in handling customer complaints and concerns for 1.5 million potential problems
(Sveiby, 1997 ).
The knowledge stored by a computer system preserves,
formalizes, and consolidates knowledge from various
sources. Joe Daniele, corporate manager for intellectua l
property at Xerox Corp., in Rochester, NY, in 1990 after identifying a retirement trend that would have created
a huge knowledge de cit throughout Xerox, recognized
the need to capture the valuable knowledge of key players in the organization before they left (Crowley, 1997 ).
Similarly, the consulting rm Integral, Inc., recognized
the need to create a system that captured and stored the
participants knowledge when 25% of its 40-person staff
planned to go to graduate school (Crowley, 1997 ). Once
the knowledge of the human participants is captured and
formalized, it can be transferred and shared throughout the
organization.
Culture. Culture is de ned by Schein (1985 ) as the
basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members
of an organization, that operate unconsciousl y, and that de ne in a basic taken-for-grante d fashion an organizations
view of itself and its environment. An organizations
values, principles, norms, and unwritten rules and procedures comprise its cultural knowledge resource. This
resource exists independently of the presence of any particular participants knowledge, yet it in uences each participants use of knowledge as well as the interactions
among participants knowledge. The cultural resource is
comprised of basic assumptions and beliefs that govern
participants activities. It is important for KM researchers
and practitioners to appreciate this knowledge resource
and the mechanisms whereby it persists and can
be altered.
Historically, culture has been a storehouse of knowledge. For instance, persons involved in karate and Japanese
culture point out that karate is not only a mechanism
to achieve physical tness, but also serves as a vehicle
through which Japanese philosophy is transferred from
generation to generation. It is an approach to preserving
an organizations (i.e., a communitys ) cultural knowledge
This transfer is highly nonverbal in nature, communicated
mainly through watching and doing. Another example of
cultural knowledge persistence involves fasting. In India,

53

the practice of fasting has been observed for centuries.

Practiced as frequently as once or twice a week, this ritual
is a body-cleansin g mechanism and a means to achieve
self-control over eating. The cultural knowledge of body
cleansing and self-control is embedded in the form of a
belief in the practice of fasting. Interestingly, an activity
similar to fasting is advocated by several diet programs
in the Western world. Also, cultural knowledge has long
been stored in the form of stories and proverbs, which
are transferred from generation to generation by means of
storytelling.
The perspective of culture as a knowledge resource can
be recognized by observing organizations participants
behaviors. For instance, a mill superintenden t championed the ultimately disastrous installatio n of a $1.5 million
arc saw for cutting nished beams. He was not penalized,
but promoted (Leonard-Barton, 1995 ). This encouraged
the values of high tolerance for risk taking and failure
at Chaparral Steel. Slowly, the knowledge that a positive attitude toward risk taking is crucial to the organizations success became ingrained in its culture. This knowledge is manifested in the form of frequent experimentation
performed by employees to solve problems, which allows
Chaparral to be innovative and creative.
An organizations cultural knowledge resource governs
participants behaviors (e.g., knowledge sharing vs.
knowledge hoarding ). It affects what knowledge is acquired and internalized. Leonard-Barton (1995 ) points out
that Values serve as a knowledge-screenin g and -control
mechanism. That is, the cultural knowledge resource can
function as a kind of meta-knowledge. It also in uences
and is in uenced by the other kinds of organizationa l
knowledge resources such as infrastructure, strategy, and
purpose.
Infrastructure. Infrastructure is the knowledge that is
used to structure an organizations participants. It is a formal counterpart to an organizations cultural knowledge
resource. Infrastructure refers to, the roles that have been
de ned for participants to ll, the relationship s among
those roles, and regulations that govern the use of roles
and relationships (Holsapple & Luo, 1996 ). The roles,
relationships , and regulations in force for an organization
are knowledge about the formal structuring of work performed by both human and computer participants. This
infrastructure knowledge resource governs not only ordinary organizationa l operations, but also the designing,
enabling, monitoring, evaluating, enforcing, and modifying of organizational infrastructure (Holsapple & Luo,
1996 ).
Representing knowledge as infrastructur e is a means of
formalizing existing organizational knowledge that can be
used to generate new knowledge (Marshall et al., 1996 ).
Role de nitions are knowledge about what needs to be

54

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

done by participants, about expectations for the participants assigned to the roles (e.g., what knowledge each
is expected to handle or generate ). Relationship de nitions are knowledge about what interactions are available
among participant- lled roles. The interactions that occur
for one relationship pattern may generate different knowledge from those that occur for a different pattern (Ching
et al., 1992 ). Regulation de nitions are knowledge of formal rules and procedures that participants are expected
to observe in lling their roles and in engaging in relationships . Examples include manufacturing and service
processes, hiring processes, performance appraisal, and
reward processes.
Knowledge Artifacts. A knowledge artifact is an object that represents knowledge. An artifact is not a participant, as it does not have any innate knowledge-processin g
capability. Common examples of knowledge artifacts are
video training tapes, books, memos, business plans in print,
manuals, patent documents, ling cabinet contents, and
products (e.g., knowledge embedded in a manufactured
car ). An artifact belongs to an organization, but it may
be under the control of or accessible to only certain
participants.
Knowledge embedded in artifacts can also be represented in other knowledge resources. Representing knowledge as an artifact involves explicit embodiment of that
knowledge in an object, thus positively affecting its ability to be transferred, shared, and preserved. For example, Chaparral Steels near-net-shape casting process, in
which both mold and process are patented (LeonardBarton, 1995 ), is represented as two knowledge artifacts:
the physical system and a document describing a patented
process (thereby preserving and protecting it ). It is conceivable that this process knowledge also resides with participants; however, it is the representation as a patent document that furnishes legal protection and preservation.
Organizational knowledge manifests itself in form of
products (Wiig, 1993 ). Products are not simply a result
of material, capital, and labor resources, but also of
knowledge resources. Knowledge resources guide the
transformation of material, labor, and capital resources
into a product. In other words, products in an organizations inventory are artifacts representing the knowledge
used to build them. Once a product is released into the
environment it is no longer an organizationa l resource.
But these products can be exchanged for other kinds of
resources (e.g., nancial ). A products exchange value is
in uenced by what a customer is willing to pay for that
knowledge. For example, the value of a can of Coke to a
consumer derives largely from the marketing, packaging,
and recipe knowledge embodied in it, rather than from the
costs of assembling certain ingredients and distributin g
them in containers. A subtle acknowledgment that knowl-

edge is represented in products can be seen in competitors

attempts at reverse engineering.
Purpose. Purpose is knowledge of the reason for
which an organization exists. It is a knowledge resource
that indicates an organizations mission, vision, objectives,
and goals. It strongly in uences the other knowledge resources that an organization does or needs to have. The
purpose resource guides strategy formulation, the result
of which then drives knowledge manipulation activities.
If this knowledge is unclear, inadequate, and not carefully
evaluated, then an organization may formulate and implement strategies that are detrimental to organizational
performance. For example, Sears, whose purpose is to sell
consumer goods, bought the investment rm Dean Witter.
This turned out to be a failure because consumers did not
consider their nancial needs to be satis able by a consumer product (Drucker, 1994 ). In this case, the knowledge about purpose (i.e., what comprises consumer goods )
was inadequate or unused.
Strategy. Strategy is knowledge about what to do in
order to achieve organizational purpose in an effective
manner. This knowledge resource indicates plans for using an organizations infrastructure, culture, knowledge
artifacts, and participants knowledge (as well as other organizational resources ). For instance, it can be plans for
promoting a product or achieving effective resource allocation. A purpose of Pepsi and Chaparral Steel is to sustain their leadership positions in their respective markets.
However, strategies needed to achieve the same purpose
are very different for each rm. Pepsis strategies focus
mainly on gaining competencies in the areas of marketing
and sales, whereas Chaparral Steel strategies focus primarily on competencies that allow it to continually improve
and innovate its production processes (Leonard-Barton,
1995 ). In this example, Pepsi and Chaparral Steel have very
different sets of strategic knowledge on how to sustain market leadership. And thus activities for acquiring and cultivating such knowledge would be different for Pepsi and
Chaparral Steel.
External Environment. An organizations environment is populated with many entities that are potential
sources of knowledge. Through contact with these entities,
an organization can augment and replenish its knowledge
resources. Environmental knowledge may be viewed as
a virtual knowledge resource for an organization. It does
not actually belong to an organization, nor is it controlled
by the organization, but it can be accessed or acquired
from the environment. This may or may not be dif cult
or expensive. The World Wide Webs content is a virtual
knowledge resource that is relatively easy and inexpensive to tap, albeit of variable quality. The Johns Hopkins

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

networked database for genetic research is an example of

a virtual knowledge resource. This database is the one
and only one of cial record of every gene and piece of
DNA thats mapped in the world. : : : [It also] captures and
re ects the ongoing wisdom of experts from all over the
world (Anthes, 1991, p. 28 ). Thousands of medical researchers and practitioners access this knowledge resource
that is virtually their own.
Discussion. The six types of knowledge resources
identi ed here are distinct. A given purpose does not dictate a particular strategy, although it may limit candidate
strategies. Conversely, a given strategy does not imply a
particular purpose. Similarly, a given culture does not dictate a particular strategy or purpose; nor is a given strategy
or purpose necessarily incompatible with all but a single
cultural variation. Infrastructure does not dictate culture,
and vice versa. Participant knowledge is different from
any of these (e.g., it is a knowledge resource that can walk
out the door ). Although artifacts may hold renditions of
any of the other knowledge resources, they are not those
other resources. Although distinct, the six types of organizational knowledge resources are also highly interrelated.
They constrain, facilitate, and reinforce each other. It is
outside the scope of this article, but we do note the importance of appreciating relationship s among knowledge resources as a basis for bringing them into proper alignment.
An organizations knowledge resources can be characterized in terms of various attributes. Although the resource types are nouns, the attributes are adjectives that
qualify them in various ways. The literature contains a
variety of attribute dimensions, including knowledge
usagepractical versus intellectua l versus pastime versus spiritual versus unwanted (Machlup, 1982 ), knowledge
typedescriptive versus procedural versus reasoning
(Holsapple & Whinston, 1988 ), knowledge mode
explicit versus tacit (Nonaka, 1994 ), knowledge subject
domain versus relational versus self (Holsapple et al.,
1996 ), and knowledge quality, involving knowledge utility and validity measures (Holsapple & Whinston, 1996 ).
For instance, usage of the latter attribute dimension can be
seen in Integral Incorporateds Knowledge Bank System,
which requires that each internalized unit of knowledge
pass through a value check or quality assurance procedure
and be assessed for assignment into one of three quality
grades (Crowley, 1997 ). Studying the application of attribute dimensions to each of the frameworks resource
types is an interesting direction for future research.
The Knowledge Manipulation Activities Component
Having identi ed the generic types of knowledge resources
an organization possesses, we now formulate a set of
generic types of manipulation activities an organization

55

undertakes in working with those resources. These knowledge manipulation activities are an expression of participants knowledge manipulation skills. Skill is the ability
to apply ones knowledge effectively and readily to execution and performance (Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1995 ). Knowledge manipulation skills
are exhibited by human and/or material resources as they
operate on knowledge resources.
From one organization to the next; we contend there
is a set of interrelated knowledge manipulation activities
that is common. These form a starting point for KM researchers investigatin g how knowledge is processed in particular organizations and for comparisons across time or
organizations . They highlight major activities with which
a chief knowledge of cer needs to be concerned. Participants knowledge manipulation skills should be cultivated,
harnessed, and organized in the performance of these activities. Thus, an organizations knowledge resources will
be used in creating value.
The second component of the framework is illustrated in
Figure 2. It retains the knowledge resources from Figure 1b
and further develops the participants knowledge manipulation skills from the gure in terms of activities performed
with those skills. The frameworks four knowledge manipulation activities are acquiring knowledge, selecting
knowledge, internalizing knowledge, and using knowledge. The latter refers to the activities of externalizing
knowledge and generating knowledge. The arrows in
Figure 2 indicate knowledge ows from one activity or
resource to the another. Aside from the knowledge ows,
activities interact by sending and receiving messages (e.g.,
requests, commands ). For simplicity, these message ows
are not represented in the gure. A message in the form of
a request can range from procedural (specifying how the
activity should be carried out ) to nonprocedural (merely
indicating what is needed ). It can range from explicit (e.g.,
a command ) to implicit (e.g., involving recognition of a
need ). It may require a fast response or tolerate performance of an activity in the background. It can range from
a one-time request to a standing request that requires continual monitoring.
Each activity can be performed individually by participants in an organization or may be carried out by con gurations of multiple participants. For instance, an individual s
knowledge manipulation skills can be applied to acquiring a unit of knowledge for the organization or the skills
of multiple participants may jointly be brought to bear
on acquiring that knowledge. An individual participant
may exercise knowledge manipulation skills to engage
in multiple activities. For instance, a person or a computer system may participate in both acquiring and generating knowledge. How participants skills are deployed
with respect to accomplishing the activities identi ed in
Figure 2 depends on an assortment of factors: resource

56

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

FIG. 2.

Major knowledge management activities.

in uences (e.g., culture, infrastructure, nancial resources,

participants knowledge manipulation skills ), environmental in uences (e.g., dynamics of the environment ), and
managerial in uences (e.g., leadership style, coordination
approach that governs assignment of participants to roles ).
These in uences on the conduct of KM are addressed in
the frameworks third component. Here the activities along
with their relationship s are described.
Acquiring Knowledge. Acquiring knowledge is the
activity of accepting a unit of knowledge from the external
environment and transforming it into a representation that
can be internalized, and/or used within an organization.
Subactivities involved in acquiring knowledge include:
knowledge from external sources. This
Extracting
includes locating, accessing, capturing, and

collecting knowledge from external sources into

the organization (e.g., customers, competitors,
suppliers, universities , consultants , government
agencies ).
Interpreting the extracted knowledge. This involves transforming extracted knowledge into

representations that can be understood and processed by another knowledge manipulation activity.
Transferring the interpreted knowledge. This
transferal can be to an activity that immediately
uses the knowledge or to one that internalizes it
within an organization for subsequent use.

Acquiring knowledge from customers is illustrated by

the example of Nikes innovative foot-measuring technology, called NGAGE (Levine, 1997 ). A customer places
a foot on a screen and a personalized card detailing customers foot length, forefoot length and width, arch length,
height and heel width, as well as recommended product
size is printed. This not only helps customers get rightsized shoes, but also allows Nike to update its sizing tables
and later to use this information for research and development of new footwear. Acquisition of knowledge in this
case involves extraction from a customer, interpretation of
a foot image, and transferal of resultant foot characteristics
for internalization in sizing tables.
Selecting Knowledge. Selecting knowledge is an activity of extracting a requested unit of knowledge from

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

internal knowledge resources and providing it in an appropriate representation to a requesting activity (i.e., to the
acquiring, using, or internalizing activities ). Subactivitie s
involved in selecting knowledge include:
requested knowledge within the internal
Locating
knowledge resources.
the located knowledge. This involves
Retrieving
capturing and/or collecting knowledge from lo-

cated organizational knowledge resources, and assembling/organizing/packaging it in a representation appropriate for the requesting activity.
Transferring retrieved knowledge to an appropriate activity. This transferal can be used to support
the acquiring, internalizing, or using activities.

An example of the selecting activity is illustrated by

Buckman Labs knowledge sharing system, KNetix
(Rifkin, 1997 ). For instance, a managing director of Asian
facilities sent a message to all the employees in the
company requesting knowledge about pitch-control strategies in their parts of the world. Within a few hours he received 11 suggestion s addressing his request and enabling
him to secure a $6 million order. Here, the KNetix participant broadcasted the message to all the human participants
for the purpose of locating an appropriate unit of knowledge. Once this knowledge was located, KNetix collected,
packaged, and transferred it to the person requesting the
knowledge.
Internalizin g Knowledge. Internalizing is an activity
that alters an organizations knowledge resources based on
acquired or generated knowledge. Subactivities involved
in internalizing knowledge include:
the knowledge to be internalized. This
Assessing
is concerned with determining the suitabilit y of

the knowledge for internalization.

Targeting the assessed knowledge. This identi es
knowledge resources that are to be impacted by
the new knowledge.
Depositing the knowledge as targeted. This involves modifying existing knowledge resources
by adding to them, deleting from them, or perhaps fundamentally restructuring them. It involves
disseminating , distributing , sharing, and diffusing
knowledge to targeted knowledge resources.

McKinsey and Bain & Co. has established a computer

system that holds experiences from various team assignments (Sveiby, 1997 ). Knowledge generated from each
assignment is internalized in the systems database. Later,
it can be selected by employees for future assignments.
In this example, suitabilit y of knowledge to be internalized is assessed by team members, who then target a

57

computer system where it is to reside and take care of

depositing it.
Using Knowledge. Using knowledge is the activity of
applying existing knowledge to generate new knowledge
and/or to produce an externalization of knowledge.
Generating Knowledge. Generating knowledge is an
activity of producing a unit of knowledge by processing existing units of knowledge, where the latter are the results of
selection, acquisition , and/or prior generation. The knowledge generated may be new to the organization. This is very
crucial because new knowledge provides the basis for
organization renewal and sustainable competitive advantage (Quinn, 1992 ). Alternatively, it may currently exist
or have previously existed in the organizations knowledge
resources. Generation of knowledge that is not new can
occur for economic reasons (e.g., it is cheaper to produce
than to select or acquire ), for training reasons, for validity
checking, due to a lack of awareness about its existence,
or due to not having been internalized when previously acquired or generated. Subactivities involved in generating
knowledge include:
the organizations knowledge re Monitoring
sources and the external environment.
selected or acquired knowledge.
Evaluating
Producing knowledge. This can involve creating,
developing, analyzing, constructing , synthesizing ,

re ning, and/or assembling knowledge from existing knowledge.

Transferring the generated knowledge for externalization and/or internalization.

There are two types of generation: deriving knowledge

and discovering knowledge. Deriving generates knowledge by structured use of procedures or rules that are
known to the organization. Examples include calculating
a forecast for product demand, deriving an optimal order
quantity using the EOQ formula, or inferring a recommendation from a set of rules. Discovery generates knowledge
in less structured ways. The exact path toward the generated knowledge cannot be fully preconceived or even
traced. Herman Helmholtz, a German physiologis t and
physicist, described his scienti c discoveries by saying
that he went through three stages: saturation , nding out
everything he could learn on the subject; incubation , re ecting on what has been absorbed, by thinking about and
mulling over what he has learned through the research; and
illumination, arriving at a sudden solution. French mathematician Henry Poincare added a fourth stage to this,
which he called veri cation (Carson, 1992 ).
Externalizing knowledge. Externalizing knowledge is
the activity of using existing knowledge to produce
organizationa l outputs for release into the environment.

58

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

Externalization is only partially a knowledge manipula tion activity because it can involve physical activities such
as the act of producing a product through transformation
of raw materials. However, the ow of material can be
seen as secondary to the ow of knowledge that enables,
facilitates, and guides it (Cook et al., 1995 ). The externalization box in Figure 2 is not completely subsumed within
the participants knowledge manipulation skills area as it
can use other skills (e.g., manual skills ) participants have.
Subactivities involved in externalizing knowledge include:
the output. This is a determination of
Targeting
what needs to be produced for targeted elements

of the environment (e.g., certain customers ).

Producing the output. This involves applying, embodying, controlling , and leveraging existing
knowledge to produce output for the target. The
output is a representation of the knowledge used
to produce it.
Transferring the output. This is concerned with
packaging and distributin g the representations of
knowledge that have been produced for targets in
the environment.

Examples of externalization include manufacturing a

car, providing technical support, or developing a nancial portfolio. For instance, manufacturing a car involves
targeting the car to a speci c market (low-income group
vs. high-incom e group ). Producing a car by applying the
product and process design knowledge to manufacture it
and then transferring the car into the external environment.
The car that is released into the market is a representation
of knowledge (disassemblin g the car during reverse engineering would reveal at least some of the knowledge that
went into manufacturing it ).
Knowledge Management Inuences
The conduct of KM in an organization involves the use
of knowledge manipulation skills to perform knowledge
manipulation activities with respect to the organizations
knowledge resources. Although both knowledge and
knowledge manipulation skills are crucial and necessary
for the operation of a knowledge-based organization, they
are not suf cient. Which of the activities in Figure 2 are
executed, when, by which participants, and with respect
to which knowledge resources? The third component of
the framework aims to help practitioners and researchers
answer such questions for speci c organizations by recognizing factors that in uence this conduct of KM.
Stewart (1997 ) describes the experience of Frank
Ostroff of Perot Systems as a college student working at
a tire-making factory. He and others were given the job
of applying glue to rubber for tire after tire. These same
people upon leaving work for the day would spend their

evenings rebuilding cars or running volunteer organizations. Although this tire-making organization had knowledgeable and skilled employees, who could rebuild a car
or run a volunteer organization, it did not use its participants expertise to create value for the organization. Little
of the participants individua l knowledge was made into an
organizational knowledge resource. Their knowledge manipulation skills were largely unused in the organizations
execution of knowledge manipulation activities. Although
some level of KM undoubtably occurred in this organization, its conduct of KM was probably far less effective than
it could have been.
The conduct of KM in an organization is in uenced
by a variety of factors. The third component of the KM
framework identi es three classes of factors: resource in uences, managerial in uences, and environmental in uences. In Figure 3, the solid circle represents KM conduct,
its inner core represents the essential results of KM conduct (i.e., projection and learning ), and each angle of the
triangle represents a class of in uences. Appreciating these
in uences is important for KM researchers in describing
and prescribing how KM is or should be accomplished.
Chief knowledge of cers need to be cognizant of such in uences as constraints on their efforts to create knowledge based organizations as well as levers that can help them to
do so.
Resource In uences. Both knowledge resources
(Andersen & APQC, 1996 ) and other resources (Inkpen,
1996 ) affect the way in which KM is conducted in an organization. Financial resources could put a ceiling on the capital expended on knowledge manipulation activities. Similarly, participants knowledge manipulation skills (e.g.,
human resources ) both constrain and facilitate knowledge
manipulation activities.
Each of the six types of knowledge resources in uences
the conduct of KM in an organization. That is, the knowledge an organization has in uences the nature and outcome of its knowledge work. For instance, Kodaks culture
has valued chemical engineering knowledge related to lm
design more than the mechanical engineering associated
with equipment design (Leonard-Barton, 1995 ). Chemical
engineers were assured good compensation and challenging assignments; consequently, Kodak attracted the best
chemical engineers, but not top-notch mechanical engineers. This proclivity likely enhanced the organizations
innovation s and projections related to chemical processes
rather than mechanical processes. Similarly, KM conduct
is in uenced by infrastructure, strategy, purpose, knowledge artifacts, and available participant knowledge.
Managerial In uences. The conduct of KM is affected
not only by the existence of various resources, but
also by the deployment of these resources. Here is where

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

FIG. 3.

59

Knowledge management in uences.

managerial in uences on KM conduct come into play.

Such in uences govern the state of an organizations
knowledge resources and the use of knowledge manipulation skills in performing the activities in Figure 2. As
indicated in Figure 3, managerial in uences on the conduct of KM include the factors of leadership, coordination ,
and measurement.
Leadership. Leadership has been recognized as a factor in uencing the conduct of KM (Andersen & APQC,
1996; Inkpen, 1996 ). The characteristics of leaders range
from being manipulators of culture (Schein, 1985 ) to architects and catalysts (Hedlund, 1994 ). In writing about
leadership, Mort Meyerson (1997 ), CEO for Perot Systems, says the way to be a leader today is different as
leaders can no longer function as sole decision makers the
way they could 15 years ago at EDS when competition
was stable. Meyerson states that the essence of leadership
today is to make sure that an organization knows itself.
In todays knowledge-base d economy a successful
leader will be one who can effectively manage both organizationa l knowledge resources and associated knowl-

edge manipulation skills. He or she creates conditions that

allow participants to readily exercise and cultivate their
knowledge manipulation skills, to contribute their own individual knowledge resources to the organizations pool of
participant knowledge, and to have easy access to relevant
knowledge resources. A study conducted by Andersen and
APQC revealed that one crucial reason why organizations
are unable to effectively leverage knowledge is because of
a lack of commitment of top leadership to sharing organizational knowledge or there are too few role models who
exhibit the desired behavior (Hiebeler, 1996 ).
Coordination. Coordination refers to managing dependencies among activities (Malone & Crowston, 1994 ).
It aims to harmonize activities in an organization by ensuring that proper resources are brought into play at appropriate times and that they adequately relate to each other
during the conduct of activities (Holsapple & Whinston,
1996 ). In the conduct of KM, dependencies that need to
be managed include those among knowledge resources
(e.g., alignment of participants knowledge with strategy,
diffusion of knowledge among participants ), those among

60

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

knowledge management activities (e.g., which activities

are undertaken under varying circumstances ), those between knowledge resources and other resources (e.g., what
nancial resources are to be allocated for knowledge manipulation activities, which participants are assigned to
which infrastructur e roles ), and those between resources
and knowledge management activities (e.g., use of knowledge manipulation activities to improve knowledge resources, allocating knowledge resources among competing knowledge manipulation activities ). The conduct of
KM in an organization is strongly in uenced by how such
dependencies are managed.
How the knowledge manipulation activities of Figure 2
are coordinated de nes an organizations approach to
problem solving, decision making, experimentation , and
organizational learningall of which are knowledge intensive endeavors. Coordination approaches suggested
and used to manage dependencies in a knowledge-based
organization include linking reward structures to sharing,
establishin g communications for knowledge sharing, and
constructing programs to encourage learning. For example,
in order to create a knowledge sharing culture at Integral,
Inc., management made knowledge sharing part of the performance review (Crowley, 1995 ). To get good reviews
(and large bonuses ), participants had to share their knowledge. At one consulting rm, professionals are expected
to document what they have learned about what works and
what does not work, and they are partially compensated
based on how often their documentation is accessed from
a central knowledge repository (Marshall et al., 1996 ).
At Buckman Labs, incentive, evaluation, and promotion
systems are designed to reward employees who share and
transfer knowledge and punish those who do not (Rifkin,
1997 ). This knowledge sharing and transfer is facilitated
by establishin g open communications via trust building
and the installatio n of the KNetix communication support system. What makes the KNetix system work is the
culture of trust instilled by company leadership (Rifkin,
1997 ). This illustrates an important point about KM in uences identi ed in the framework: Although the in uences are distinct concepts, they are related to and can
impact each other. The ef cacy of coordination can be
impacted by leadership (another managerial in uence on
KM ). Culture (a knowledge resource in uence ) can affect
the fashion in which coordination can be conducted and
coordination , in turn, can lead to cultural change.
Measurement. Another managerial in uence on the
conduct of KM is the installatio n of mechanisms for measuring knowledge resources, knowledge manipulation
skills and activities, and the results of KM in terms of organizational learning and projection. Such measurement
becomes a basis for evaluation of leadership, coordina tion, and resources. It can indicate where adjustments in
these may be needed.

Ultimately, measurement may help evaluate the impact

of an organizations KM on bottom-line performance. Interestingly, this is an under-implemented area (Hiebeler,
1996 ). A few organizations have developed a set of indicators for KM measurement. For example, the Swedish
rm Celemi published the worlds rst audit of its intangible assets in its 1995 Annual Report; Skandia uses
non nancial indicators to measure its processes and published the rst annual report supplement on intellectual
capital (Sveiby, 1997 ). Chris Turner, learning person
for Xerox, believes that anecdotal evidence is more valuable than hard data in measuring if KM is occurring or
working for a company (Webber, 1997 ). Turner emphasizes the point that measurement indicators need not be
hard and nancial, but can be soft and non nancial. What
is important is linking these indicators to the nancial
results.
The feasibility of measuring knowledge resources or
processes and linking them to nancial results is not only
dif cult but also controversial. There exist two schools of
thought: One believes knowledge assets and processes can
be measured (Lev, 1997; Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997 ),
and the other contends youre a fool if you buy into
this (Rutledge, 1997 ). Whatever the case, the framework
in Figure 3 posits that the conduct of KM is in uenced
by (1 ) whether an organization attempts to measure its
knowledge resources and/or performance of its knowledge
manipulation activities, (2 ) how it goes about measuring
these, and (3 ) how effective the measures are.
Environmental In uences. Aside from internal factors
(resource and managerial in uences ), entities outside an
organization also affect its conduct of KM. The environment determines or constrains what knowledge resources
should or can be acquired, as well as what the knowledge manipulation skills are available (via a labor pool or
available technology ). As Figure 3 illustrates, external in uences include such factors as competition, customers,
markets, suppliers, and the GEPSE (governmental, economic, political, social, and educational ) climate. Examples of these are many, varied, and largely self-evident.
Detailed investigation s of these are warranted.
SURVEY AND RESULTS
Aside from conceptual justi cation for the framework, survey results provide external validation. A list was compiled
of contributors to the KM literature, presenters at KM conferences, and faculty who designate KM as a major research area. Each of the 122 persons on this list received
the framework description as presented in this paper, plus
a questionnaire . Of the 31 respondents, 13 identi ed themselves as researchers, 13 as practitioners, and the rest as
both researcher and practitioner.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

Respondents were asked to assess each of the three

framework components on four criteria: completeness, accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. Their perceptions regarding the overall framework were also captured by asking
how satis ed they were with the overall framework and
the extent of the frameworks success in providing a uni ed and comprehensive view of KM phenomena. These
perceptions were gathered using Likert-scale items and
clustered into three categories: low, medium, high. For instance, responses indicating no success to slight success
form the low category; those in the somewhat successful to
moderately successful range form the medium category;
responses in the successful to extremely successful range
belong to the high success category. In addition to scaled
items, respondents were also asked to provide observations on the need for a KM framework (responses were
shown earlier in Table 1 ).
Distribution s of responses are presented in Figures 4
and 5. Figure 4 shows frequency distribution s of responses
concerning the overall framework. The respondents are
nearly unanimous in their perception that it is highly
important to have a KM framework. Overall satisfaction
with the threefold framework was indicated to be medium
or high by over 80% of the respondents. Similar results
were obtained for the frameworks success in providing a

FIG. 4.

61

uni ed view and a comprehensive view of the main factors

involved in KM.
Figure 5 shows frequency distribution s of responses on
the four criteria for each of the frameworks three components. For each of the 12 assessments, at least 70% regard
the framework as in the medium to high success categories.
The mode is high success for 9 of the 12 and medium success for the other three assessments. On the whole, these
results are supportive of the framework, but do suggest
that future modi cations to the framework should focus on
enhancing the accuracy and clarity of the resource component and the completeness of the activity component.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
In its current stage of development, the framework has
several uses. It provides a language (i.e., a system of terms
and concepts ) for discourse about and study of KM phenomena. It can be used to generate and frame KM research issues. It identi es factors with which KM practitioners should deal. Survey results are positive, but also
suggest there is room for improvement in the framework.
The framework itself serves as a basis for thinking about
extensions, re nements, or corrections that could yield
an improved KM framework. We conclude with a brief

Responses concerning the overall framework.

62

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

FIG. 5.

Responses for each of the frameworks component.

discussion that highlight s a few avenues of subsequent investigation implied by the framework.
Each of the three main components and any of their
subcomponents can be analyzed in greater detail. That is,
the framework is a starting point for gaining a deeper understanding of any of its elements and of relationship s
that an element may have with other elements. For example, the knowledge selection activity has been examined in
greater detail, leading to an identi cation of issues related
to knowledge selection that deserve consideration by KM
researchers and practitioners, plus a characterization of
current technological offerings for performing and supporting knowledge selection (Holsapple & Joshi, 1999b ).
The threefold framework can be applied similarly to guide
the study of other knowledge manipulation activities or of
elements in the in uence and resource components.
The framework provides building blocks for devising
and investigatin g prescriptive frameworks. KM methods
can be designed and developed to guide the temporal pattern of knowledge manipulation activities that should be

used to satisfy a knowledge need. Prescriptions about what

knowledge resources deserve greater cultivation and how
to conduct that cultivation are another possibilit y.
Each of the manipulation activities identi ed in Figure 2
can be explored from such standpoint s as how to effectively perform it relative to available knowledge resources,
how to employ technology in implementing the activity,
and how to utilize it in the scope of more composite activities. Fulcrum, for example, has implemented software
that performs the selection activity with respect to a diverse
set of knowledge repositories (Fulcrum, 1997 ). Composite
knowledge manipulation activities include problem solving, experimenting, decision making, and learning. Each
can be characterized in terms of patterns of the elemental
manipulation activities and each is susceptible to technological support (e.g., a knowledge-base d view of decision
making; Holsapple, 1995 ).
The threefold framework can be employed to organize an exploration of available technologies . What types
of technologies can support and/or perform each of the

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A THREEFOLD FRAMEWORK

knowledge manipulation activities? What types of technologies facilitate KM initiatives (e.g., measuring, controlling, and coordinating knowledge manipulation activities
and resources )? What types of technologies can be used
for storing, representing, and embedding knowledge? How
can technology affect projection and learning? Investigations to answer these questions can help clarify the role of
technology in KM.
The framework suggests a need for investigatin g possible linkages between resource, managerial, and environmental in uences on the one hand and the outcome
of KM conduct (i.e., organizational learning and projections ) on the other hand. For a given set of environmenta l
and resource in uences, how might we select from coordination, leadership, and measurement alternatives? Such
questions appear to be amenable to empirical investiga tions. At a more fundamental level, there is the issue of
identifying these alternatives as a prelude to assessing their
ef cacy.
A study of in uences on the conduct of KM is also
important from the standpoint of detecting de ciencies
in knowledge resources and in the management of those
resources. Such de ciencies, if untreated, can lead to malfunction in organizational processes and damage of overall
performance. The in uences identi ed in Figure 3, as well
as the activities noted in Figure 2, need to be investigate d
with respect to how they can be shaped to remedy problems
in the conduct of KM.
One formal way to further develop the threefold framework is by means of a Delphi-like methodology (Bacon &
Fitzgerald, 1996 ). This involves identifying a panel of experts on KM. The experts are provided with the threefold
framework and asked to comment on its accuracy, comprehensiveness , clarity, and conciseness. These comments
give a basis for revising the framework. The revised framework is then submitted to the panel for a second round of
comment and critique. This process continues until consensus is reached or panelists express no major reservations about the framework. In this way, the framework is
bene cial in leading to its own obsolesence.
REFERENCES
Amidon, D. 1996. The momentum of knowledge management.
hhttp://www.entovation.com/momentum/momentum.htmi
Anthes, G. 1991. A step beyond a database. COMPUTERWORLD
4 March:28.
Andersen, Arthur, and the American Productivity and Quality Center.
1996. The knowledge management assessment tool: External benchmarking version.
Bacon, J., and Fitzgerald, B. 1996. The eld of IST: A name, a framework, and a central focus. hhttp://www.ucc.ie/esrc/ist.htmli
Carson, B. 1992. Think bigUnleashing your potential for excellence.
New York: Harper.

63

Ching, C., Holsapple, C., and Whinston, A. 1992. Reputation, learning,

and organizational coordination. Organization Science 3(2):85 98.
Cook, D., Chung, C., and Holsapple, C. 1995. Information ow rst,
material ow next! APICSThe Performance Advantage 5(1):38
39.
Crowley, A. 1997. Memory bank. PC Week 6 January:101.
Drucker, P. 1993. Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper & Collins.
Drucker, P. 1994. The theory of business. Harvard Business Review
72(5):95 104.
Fulcrum. 1997. The search for knowledge begins here! hhttp://www.
fulcrum.com/homepage.htm i
Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the
N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal 15(summer):
73 90.
Hiebeler, R. 1996. Benchmarking knowledge management. Strategy
and Leadership 24(2):22 29.
Holsapple, C. 1995. Knowledge management in decision making and
decision support. Knowledge & Policy 8(1):5 22.
Holsapple, C., and Joshi, K. D. 1999a. Description and analysis of
existing knowledge management frameworks. Proceedings of the
Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Maui.
Holsapple, C., and Joshi, K. D. 1999b. Knowledge selection: Concepts,
issues, and technology. In The handbook of knowledge management,
ed. J. Liebowitz, pp. 7-1 717, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Holsapple, C., and Luo, W. 1996. A framework for studying computer
support of organizational infrastructure. Information and Management 31(1):13 24.
Holsapple, C., and Whinston, A. 1987. Knowledge-based organizations. The Information Society 5(2):77 90.
Holsapple, C., and Whinston, A. 1988. The information jungle: A quasinovel approach to managing corporate knowledge. Homewood, IL:
Dow Jones-Irwin.
Holsapple, C., and Whinston, A. 1996. Decision support systems: A
knowledge-based approach. St. Paul, MN: West.
Holsapple, C., Johnson, L., and Waldron, V. 1996. A formal model for
the study of communication support systems. Human Communications Research 22(3):422 447.
Inkpen, A. 1996. Creating knowledge through collaboration. California
Management Review 39(1):123 139.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Lev, B. 1997. The old rules no longer apply. Forbes ASAP 7 April:35
36.
Machlup, F. 1982. Knowledge: Its creation, distribution, and economic signi canceThe branches of learning, vol. II. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Malone, M. 1997. New metrics for new age. Forbes ASAP 7 April:40
41.
Malone, T., and Crowston, K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of
coordination. ACM Computing Surveys 26(1):87 119.
Marshall, C., Prusak, L., and Shpilberg, D. 1996. Financial risk and the
need for superior knowledge management. California Management
Review 38(3):77 101.
Meyerson, M. 1997. Everything I thought I knew about leadership is
wrong. Fast Company [Special Collectors Edition: New Rules of
Business] May:4 11.
Miles, B., and Huberman, M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. London:
Sage.

64

C. W. HOLSAPPLE AND K. D. JOSHI

Miner, J. B. 1978. The management process: Theory, research, and

practice, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Newell, A. 1982. The knowledge level. Arti cial Intelligence 18(1):87
127.
Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business
Review 69(6):96 104.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. Organization Science 5(1):14 37.
Quinn, J. B. 1992. The intelligent enterprise. New York: Free Press.
Rifkin, G. 1997. Buckman Labs nothing but Net. Fast Company.
hhttp://www.fastcompany.com/03/buckman.htmli
Rutledge, J. 1997. Youre a fool if you buy into this. Forbes ASAP
7 April:43 45.
Schein, E. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, T. 1997. Intellectual capital. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Stuart, A. 1996. Uneasy piecesPart 5. hhttp://www.cio.com/CIO/

060196 uneasy 1.htmli
Sveiby, K. 1997. What is knowledge management? hhttp://www.
svieby.com.au/KnowledgeManagement.htmli
Tof er, A. 1990. Powershift: Knowledge, wealth and violence at the
edge of the 21st century. New York: Bantam Books.
van Lohuizen, C. 1986. Knowledge management and policy making.
Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8(1):12 38.
Vatter, W. J. 1947. The fund theory of accounting and its implications
for nancial reports. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Webber, A. 1997. XBS learns to grow. Fast Company. [Special Collectors Edition: New Rules of Business] May:44 51.
Wiig, K. 1993. Knowledge management foundations. Arlington, VA:
Schema Press.
Zack, M., and Serino, M. 1997. Knowledge management and collaboration technologies. hhttp://www.lotus.com/institute/2102.htmi