Knowledge-Based Strategies and Systems: A Systematic Review
Meir Russ (University of Wisconsin – Green Bay, USA), J. Greg Jones (Berea, Kentucky, USA) and Jeannette K. Jones (American Intercontinental University – Online Campus, USA)
Copyright: © 2008
Knowledge management strategies and implementation of knowledge-based systems have gained importance over the last decade. However, many organizations are not able to develop “winning” knowledge-based strategies and others waste signifi- cant monies when the knowledge-based systems they invest in fail to produce the desired results. To address the challenges faced by these organizations, a recently developed framework for strategic dilemmas was proposed by Russ, Jones, and Fineman (2006) to aid in the development of knowledge-based (KB) strategies. The framework (C3EEP) identifies six dilemmas that organizations should balance when considering their knowledge management and business strategies. Examples of such dilemmas include the balance between concealment (secrecy) vs. transparency, complementary vs. destroying, and the balance between exploitation and exploration. The framework compliments the six stages in the life cycle of KB systems (KBS) as identified by the academic literature that discusses the development and implementation of KBS from the information systems (IS) perspective (e.g., Lytras, Pouloudi, & Poulymenakou, 2002; Nissen, Kamel, & Sengupta, 2000). This interaction/ linkage between KB strategies and systems is crucial for the success of both. Academic research supports the complex relationship between the two. However, there is no conclusive formula for managing this relationship to achieve success. The purpose of this study will be to identify crossovers between the two streams (strategy and systems) of research by using a systematic literature review. For example, is the academic literature focusing mostly on the learning aspect (late stage in the life cycle) of the exploration strategy while largely ignoring the discussion about attracting the appropriate knowledge (early stage in the life cycle) for this kind of strategy? Or does the academic literature focus on populating a KBS with appropriate complementary knowledge while largely ignoring the dynamics of the transfer of destroying knowledge (learning aspect)? The authors hope to accomplish three goals in this study: (1) to continue the validation of the two (C3EEP and KBS life cycle) frameworks; (2) to identify new research opportunities; and (3) to focus managerial attention on areas of importance in KB strategies and systems that lack depth of academic discussion.