LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Knowledge Management and Business
Mu’taz Tayseer Ayed
Knowledge becomes one of the main key resources in organizations and firms because of its
economic benefits in addition to the traditional keys, financial capital, labour, and land.
Leading companies in the world now invest huge amount of money on technology and
research of knowledge management in order to elicit knowledge and know-how from
experienced practitioner minds, because of the tremendous pressure in competition in modern
Companies now a day are hiring minds more than hands. The importance of knowledge is
indicated in different fields and aspects; it solved many firms’ problems and saved finance
and time. On the other hand, firms who did not respond to the need of the knowledge
management lost a competitive advantage in the global market.
(Becerra-Fernandez, et al., 2004) In 1969, the most significant achievement in mankind
history arose when Neil Armstrong became the first human walking on the moon. This
historical event was a bittersweet symphony for NASA’s chief Sylvia Fries, sweet for the
celebration of people, but, it was bitter because of the knowledge that evaporated in the first
lunar adventure. Apollo 11 had 4KB (RAM), 74KB of auxiliary memory, and no disk drive.
Furthermore, Carruthers mentioned: In aerospace industry the profits of knowledge can be
identify in the learning curve, which illustrate the ability of aircraft manufacturer like Boeing
and Airbus to manufacture the same aircraft that cost 5 Billion with approximately 200
Million and reduce the time needed to manufacture a plane and its parts. This could not be
done without managing and collecting the knowledge, know-how, and expertise skills in 5
years of manufacturing, reporting, searching, and correcting.
Figure 1: Learning curve in Aerospace industry
(Barnes, 2002)Technology changes, education, customer power, and high demand, changed
the business and economy standards, increasing the pressure on firms to cope with market
demands and changes. Many strategies had been developed trying to react with pressure and
be flexible such as, business process re-engineering (Hammer and Champy, 1983), total
quality management (Edward Deming, 1986), downsizing (Trimmer, 1993)…etc.
However, all these theories had a transient and limited effect, which push to rethink about
ideas that achieve competitive advantage. Barnes continued, the focus shifted to a source-
based view, it means to look at the organization resources as a key of competitive advantage.
This view found uniqueness between the capability and resources of the organization.
Moreover, knowledge and information found as a competitive differentiator as the knowledge
of expertise and know-how knowledge to become a valuable to be managed, captured,
shared, and created. Consequently, the field of knowledge management was born and then
(Barnes, 2002) Used Nonaka (1994) and Huber (1991) knowledge definition as a justified
personal vision comes as a result of experience and skills that increases an individual’s
capacity to take effective action and decision that supports the organization.
Different scientists and writers tried to define knowledge clearly, but the argument still
existing for these days. The common thing between all views is that knowledge created from
after being data, then information which is meaningful, understandable and useful.
Figure 2: Data, information and knowledge structure
Tacit and explicit knowledge
One of the terms in knowledge management is to know the distinction between the two types
of knowledge, tacit and explicit. (Hawryszkiewycs, 2010, p. 73) Explicit knowledge is the
one able to be codified, structured and unstructured, which make it easier to understand and
managed. Knowledge of last years’ sales is an example on explicit structured knowledge that
can be understood. Stories about workers experience with customers by a creative and
experience background is an unstructured knowledge.
On the other hand, tacit is the knowledge which individuals have in their minds as a result of
experience, data and creativity in solving problems, a combination of facts and cognitive
process used by people which is not easy to be codified or stored. (Hawryszkiewycs, 2010, p.
Is knowledge manageable?
Obviously, as it is hard to be absorbed from individual minds, knowledge itself is not
manageable. The process needed to encourage people to share, develop, and increase the
intellectual capital in a firm or organization is the manageable.
Approximately 42% of knowledge resides inside individuals’ brains, therefore; a
management system should be implemented in the firm to route map connects all firms
members to understand their responsibilities, relevance with the firm and to access the
available and needed knowledge to share, increase and develop firms intellect capacity.
Knowledge management (KM), Knowledge management systems (KMS)
Knowledge management is one of the most important today in research and industry.
Although it is playing a main role in business, it is difficult to define it because of many
seasons, such as, the difficulty to define the knowledge itself, how to absorb knowledge, how
hard to point to something and say it is a knowledge.
(Hislop, 2013, p. 49) In order to define and understand “Knowledge management”, both
terms should be clearly understood and defined. As mentioned before, many scientists
defined and argued about knowledge, the ability to manage.
However, Alvesson and Karreman (2001) suggestion about knowledge management literature
weakness is to define “management” by its unproblematic and self-evident. To understand
knowledge management clearly, talking about management is important as much as
knowledge. Therefore, the term management ‘used as a noun, refers to a group of people who
have responsibility for managing people and other organizational resources. Used as an
adjective, management refers to the process by which people and organizational resources are
controlled and coordinated with the intention of achieving particular objectives.’ (Hislop,
2013, p. 50)
(Davenport, 1994, p. 124) defined knowledge management (KM) as the process of sharing,
capturing, developing, and effectively store and use organisational knowledge using different
approaches to make the best use of knowledge support achieving organisational goals and
(Caokes, 2003) Knowledge management is the name given to the set of systematic actions
that an organization can take to obtain the greatest value from the knowledge available to it.
(McInerney, 2002, p. 1009) Knowledge management is an effort to increase useful
knowledge within the organization. Ways to do this include encouraging communication,
offering opportunities to learn, and promoting the sharing of appropriate knowledge.
Arguably, Davenport can be considered as the most general definition because it described
the different processes of the knowledge, create and absorb knowledge, under management
term and the necessity of being beneficial for the organization, which is the business or
Caokes definition spots the light on the importance of the sequence, the need of a system, and
how much is the value obtained from KM without specify exactly what are the systematic
actions unlike the other definition. On the other hand, McInerney has been specific even more
than Davenport by mention ways to share, create, and develop knowledge, by encouraging,
communicate, learn, promote.
Consequently, KM is the process of managing the systematic plan which main target is to
share, create, develop valuable knowledge by communicating, socializing, and encourage
learning; to achieve organizations objectives and competitive advantage.
(Singh, 2013, p. 212) Companies whom are relying and compete on expertise knowledge
(e.g., professional services companies and management consulting firms) started to
implement information systems to expedite the integration, storing, and codification the
knowledge of the organization, as Singh quoted from Alavi, 1997; Bartlett, 1996; Sensiper,
1997 , this system referred to knowledge management system KMS.
The difference KMS and information management system IMS
Basically, IMS is the tool of managing information by collect, store, and categorize
information to support management in firms to do the job, in addition to analyse and
summarise reports. It gives indications about service quality, customer satisfaction, and
employee efficiency. (Benson & Standing, 2008, p. 79).
They added; IMS can be divided or work in five categories: management reporting system,
decision support system, expert system, executive information system, and groupware.
It can be conclude, the main difference between KMS and IMS is the flow of knowledge in
KMS and information in IMS. In KMS knowledge should be created from experience and
know-how in individuals mind and the need to redirect it by socializing and sharing to create
another valuable knowledge, on the other hand, IMS is about input and output of document,
database, and reports then be collected to give informative result.
Further, the nature of the material or object managed (knowledge and information) in both
system are totally different, “knowledge is information possessed in the mind of individual”,
“knowledge resides in the user and not in the collection [of information” (Barnes, 2002, p.
17) , Barnes mention Vance (1997) definition of information as data interpreted into a
meaningful framework or a result, while knowledge is information that has been
authenticated and thought to be true. Therefore, information is easier to be identified than
Knowledge management in trends, problems and challenges
(Gupta, et al., 2000) There are two major trends for KM in the beginning of the twenty-first
century since the only advantage for organizations is what they know and how they use it.
First trend is “measuring the intellectual capital of an organization: developing measurement
ratios/indexes and benchmarks”, second trend is “knowledge mapping: capturing knowledge
gained by individual and disseminating it throughout the organization, mainly via information
Though, not having a measurement tool or benchmarks, which is a trend, is a problem and
challenged to be solved specially to implement an effective technology for it. Managers
mentioned the cultural issues as the primary concern in KM, particularly, how to convince
people to share their knowledge in the organization and volunteer it with other business units.
Other problems and concerns rise not only on the knowledge and individual aspects, also
regarding to managerial, informational circumstances can be seen in the following table from
(Barnes, 2002, p. 22)
Externalizing tacit knowledge problem
As mentioned before, one of the main challenges with knowledge is to value it and to
distinguish between tacit and explicit knowledge regarding to Polanyi. Particularly, tacit
knowledge has more difficulty than explicit, in Polanyi’s words, “We can know more than we
can tell” 1996 (Barnes, 2002, p. 36).
In Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) knowledge creation, tacit knowledge should be externalized
to be an explicit by sharing metaphors when socializing. In contrast, trouble aspects about
externalizing tacit knowledge derive in three points: firstly, no personal need to make it explicit on the
individual level. Secondly, people are not aware about their selves and the knowledge they hold.
Thirdly, transform tacit to explicit can reduce its power and competitive advantage.
Two distinct properties of tacit knowledge are claimed by Polanyi; proximal and distal. Distal
is the part that is far away from us and proximal is the part close to us and our point of view.
For example, focus the interest, which is the proximal term, on a document or report, which is
the distal term, somehow knowledge can be recognized and captured.
Table 1: Key concerns and challenges related to KM
Case studied, failure and success
Two case studies in two different firms are discussed in this section illustrate success and
failure KM systems.
Volvo case study, sharing tacit knowledge:
This case study is discussed in (Barnes, 2002).
Case study information and research methodology
Agent-based recommender system was implemented in the autumn of 1988 and took four
months to be used at IT service Company within Volvo group. With intranet of 450 servers
that had about 400,000 documents between reports, of projects, frequently asked questions
The company involved 80 Volvo employees with different jobs and position, but 48 agreed to
participate. Then, the participant had 2-hour meeting about the system, its purpose, how to
use it, and what to do. (Barnes, 2002). The theory used in this research was an exploratory
way and giving users the finding on which the analysis is built, rather than formed
Seven out of the 48 did not comet with the system and were sending the information by e-
mail intermittently. Different ways used to collect users information and documents to
categorize and analyse it, users were invited to group interviews, which were 18 to 66
minutes, but only eight attended and the rest had been sent a questionnaire e-mails also only
12 responded. (Barnes, 2002)
System information and purpose
Users had four options to do in the system: delete, edit, find, or check result of the agents
they had, and then the agents will be beyond keyword that users will come up with, which
should be descriptive and related to the agent. The goal was to have system able to provide
the company with the targeted information with less workers effort.
Participant used the system very high in the first week, but after two weeks the using dropped
dramatically, and then maintained constant at w certain level with some fluctuation and
unitability every while, like using the system heavily in days then stay away for days. Seven
participant expressed they did not have the keyword that can fully include all the meaning in
their mind about the agent.
Then, 27 responding users tried the result of the system, (7 of 27) responding users’ feedback
mentioned that the system was useful and believed in its benefits in the future as a great
potential. But the majority (15 of 27) reported a strange and unexpected result from the
programme with unrelated documents or information about the agents or keywords.
Conclusion and failure factors
In conclusion, this project is selected as a fail, because of the obvious feedback of the
majority, in addition to not use a particular theory as mentioned before which gave users the
freedom to input any information and share any knowledge that might be not valuable or
The teaming up should have been designed better regarding to one suggestion “what is the
use of hooking up with people doing the same stuff I do...” which reflect that users with
different work profile had not been used very well. Consequently, the socializing was not in
the plan from the beginning which is a weak point in this system.
IBS –Kolkata (IBS-K) business school in India
This case study is discussed in (Basu & Sengupta, 2007)
Case study information and research methodology
(Basu & Sengupta, 2007)This case focuses on the factor behind a successful learning
organization in terms of knowledge management. The school is chosen because it has been
matured and developed in the last 12 years and has got many initiatives in sustainability to be
in the top 50 business schools in India with remarkable reputation. Different types of
questions had been asked for IBS members, closed-ended questions to Likert scales.
42 members from different backgrounds such as, Finance, economy, and marketing were
involved in the questionnaire in the age between 25-56 years old, only 25 members
responded. In addition to records about the reviews from work field about the school has been
(Basu & Sengupta, 2007)IBS-K has added to a brilliant data base comprising of equipment,
programming, system where it keeps up a fast 4 Mbps. Various business databases, for
example, Cygnus, Reuters Business Insight, Prowess and so forth. With the end goal of
showing and examination, a substantial number of modern programming bundles like Oracle,
SPSS, SAS, SAP, Rational Rose and others are authorized for normal utilization.
After that, an extraordinary intranet site called 'Workforce Zone' has been given to all the
employees of the establishment. The goal was to scatter different work related data
(beginning from class timetable to understudy input, talk discussion and reporting of different
The impacts of such offices have been reflected in the use example of data extraction by the
employees. 33 every penny of data needed by the personnel is removed from Internet,
contrasted with 27 every penny from the inside library and 10 every penny from the outside
libraries. IBS has as of late presented talk discussion on its site and requests workforce
recommendations on different issue.
Conclusion and successful factors
It was noticed that substantial knowledge communication takes place on informal workers
efforts with non-IBS-K experts, which is interesting. The communication tools used are
mostly direct contact and telephone calls.
Moreover, factors of successful started with a high integrated technology available for all,
motivation of users and commitment, moderate pay-scale and allied benefits above sector
average, encouraging in conferences, research and publication, a relative low knowledge
sharing by users, but it is improving every year. (Basu & Sengupta, 2007)
Learning organizations concept, fifth discipline, features and
implementation keys drivers
As we mentioned before, many management ideas were revealed in the last decades but
without any stability and with a short and permanent effect and benefits.
Sources-based view was the strategy with more reliability, which is became the born of KM.
Because of the need to share, capture and create knowledge, huge firms like IBM and
General Motors became to turn and look for being a “learning organization” to achieve
competitive advantage. So, what is the “learning organizations” and what are the criteria to be
a learning organization?
Regarding (Larson, 1993) as quoted Peter Senge "is a place where people continually expand
their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually
learning how to act together."
From this definition, the concept behind the learning organization is to work in teams in order
to learn from others experience, which means obviously to share and create knowledge, and
that will be beneficial for the firm because there will be no loss in the skills and experience in
the firm and it will keep going in a loop that is compatible with Nonaka theory.
Consequently, learning organization concept is to manage knowledge under the name of
Figure 3: Fifth disciplines combination
(Senge, 2001) Explains five points characterize the learning organization that encourages
workers to participate in the KM operation, these five disciplines are as follow:
System thinking in organization is seen as an effective tool in solving problem, also, as much
as the thinking in organization is wide and unique, the way of thinking and augmenting the
complicated issues will be different and unique (Senge, 2001, p. 88). Many tools are used in
system thinking such as, archetypes, casual loop diagram and computer tools that make it
easy to talk about interrelationships.
For example, as Daniel Kim the publisher of the systems Thinker, some people who work in
multinational organizations are not native in the same language but they can understand the
purpose and the goal from others because they are in the same “system thinking” area.
Consequently, system thinking encircle a large number of unorganized methods, principles
and tools directed to look at the relation of forces and system parts and seeing them as a part
in the same process in order to guide the system to have the same behaviour with the
common tool, theories and principles (Senge, 2001, p. 89).
One of the system thinking forms has become very effective language to achieve fruitful
change in organization which is called “system dynamics”.
The term mastery is a Sanskrit root “mah” means “greater”, In medieval French it means:
someone who was exceptionally proficient and skilled to done something – a master of a
craft. In our use today it means more closely the capability not only the result, so, if someone
did something with some struggling he or she would not be called a master.
Furthermore, this discipline looks to the organization as the capability of people, but giving
training and try to increase workers capability is not enough; it needs a spark from people to
learn, because if it is not, systematically they will forget it. (Senge, 2001). So, it is an
individual learning and capability’s increase.
(Senge, 2001) Mentioned “The central practice of personal mastery involves learning to keep
both a personal vision and clear picture of current reality before us” which will create a force
within ourselves called “creative tension.
Team learning means to adjust individuals' effort by coordinating their energies, making
cooperative energy. It involves the capability of minds and personalities by mastering
practices of discussions and dialog.
Discussion is the place distinctive views are displayed and shielded looking for a perspective
to bolster choices that must be made. Dialog includes suspending one's own particular
perspectives, investigating issues from different perspectives, and going to the mental models
and individual visions of others.
A learning association showing groups furnished with skills in request and reflection will be
better arranged constantly to extend its ability to make its future. (Flood, 1998, p. 266)
On the other hand, there may be strengths at work that anticipate gainful discourse and
dialog. Once more, Senge makes reference to the exploration of Argyris and Schon, called
activity science. Activity science endeavours to recognize guarded schedules individuals
utilize in dialog and dialog that separate those processes.
For case, actually when one colleague realizes that another has committed an error, they may
incline toward not to remark genuinely about this on the grounds that it can result in shame or
It is a vision to which many people are sharing the same purpose, commitment and goal to
collaborate different visions, opinions in the same goal. By sharing common sense of job and
operating value. It is an extension of personal mastery as individuals’ capabilities to collect
these improved capabilities in a shared commitment. Shared vision creates and secures
organizations’ future. (Flood, 1998, p. 265).
Many points constitute the vehicle of shared vision due to (Senge, 2001), firstly, by having a
destiny in organization which should be clear, that helps people to have a shared vision and
goal to work on, create, expand and develop their skills.
This destiny or goal can be expressed by organizations’ founders. Secondly, the heart of
shared vision is to create and evolve in which workers in every part or level in the
organization can express honestly from their hart what really matter to them and to the
organization, and be heart by the managers. That evaluates the quality of the shared vision.
Mental models are the stories, images, ideas, we hold in our mind or other people and
institution which shape the way each individual define and look to the world. Mental models
are the tacit knowledge in people minds and invisible in the routines they discharge.
The discipline of mental models encourages individuals’ to recognize mental models they
carry in their minds. Mapping mental models in a process that help organizations to create a
sharing, socializing environment will help it to increase the capability.
Mental models are extended to create “organizational learning”, because every individual can
explain the same thing in a different way. Challenging mental models expands individuals' as
well as teams' capacity to learn and to create their own future (Senge, 2001) & (Flood, 1998).
Figure 4: Organizational learning development
Key drivers behind learning organization can be summarized in preserving the expertise and
the knowledge carried inside their minds to the firm with environment help expanding and
improving the knowledge they carry and transfer it to others.
Also, helps to solve complex problems, increase the performance financially and non-
In conclusion of the fifth discipline, every single one requires sharing and learning on the
individual and team level to support the organization’s purpose and goal in a planned system.
So, with a looped system offering learning with different levels and styles to every single
person in the organization the knowledge will be mapped, shared and created in the
organization to increase its capability, stability and be able to react with pressure and
Moreover, a link between people in the organization is implemented, which helps socializing
in between with continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire.
Strategies adopt learning organization & “Is your organization a learning
As mentioned previously, all companies are trying to switch to be a learning organization to
increase capability and adapt with future changes, yet, few companies achieved that and the
rest did not.
Many reasons can be behind failure of implementing the learning organization such as, a
wrong structure for building a learning organization or not enough tools to assist the learning
flow or how beneficial is the learning.
As a consequence, (Garvin, et al., 2008) proposed a solution to answer the question by
construct a three building stones reflect the building strategy of learning organization. Then, a
measuring tool to assist how effective and beneficial is the learning organization in order to
implement a total learning organization rather than a traditional organization with a
traditional management system.
Three main blocks should be the base of the learning organization, purposely, to create and
share learning with the necessity to the leadership.
Block 1: A supportive learning environment
Having the learning environment is the first step should be done because it encourages
everybody to talk and explain their ideas, in addition to argue others without fear or shy, and
ask questions. For example, Minnesota, children’s hospital and clinic, edited the reporting
policies with new conditions called “blameless reports” which asks for reporting without the
fear of being blamed or judged.
Surprisingly, that helped and increased the clearness and honesty in reporting and identifying
the illness reasons or death causes. As a result, the percentage of deaths and illness decreased
by prevention. (Garvin, et al., 2008)
Block 2: Concrete learning process
The learning environment and process should not remain the same, next step is to keep it
under improving and “concrete” it by having an information system support workers to learn
from complex problem, competitors and customers.
Experience new challenges and keep training employees. By making participants asking why,
what we should have done to make it better and how, what to do next time, US army was able
to improve many aspects by codifying the results. (Garvin, et al., 2008)
Block 3: Leadership that reinforce learning
Both previews blocks need a leadership to achieve the first two blocks by show willingness to
hear alternative solutions or ideas from employees, in addition to involve every individual in
an effective listening and discussion then indicate the important information, knowledge to be
mapped and transferred.
Harvey Golub, former CEO of American Express, enthuse managers to think creatively by
asking them many questions about problems and importance aspects related to the future of
the organization. (Garvin, et al., 2008)
It can be seen, the difference between learning and traditional organization is; on the firm
level, in learning organisations, mistakes and errors are seen as learning opportunities or a
sign that procedures need to be reviewed and improved, that training may need to be
introduced to prevent mistakes to be repeated and the blame is more on process than
Similarly, positive results can be highlighted as opportunities for imitation by other teams,
units departments. In traditional approaches, mistakes are more readily seen as an opportunity
to criticise or complain or discipline the guilty party. Denial is used to avoid facing painful
realities. In consequent, vital lessons are not learned and history may be repeated.
Role of technology in KM projects
The role of technology in KM projects is basically about how technology helped in KM
sharing, creating and storing the tacit. Many technologies are helping in KM improvement
regarding to (Kazi, August 2002, p. 130) such as Telephone, Internet/Intranet…etc. Kazi
2002 added due to a questionnaire in construction industry about effectiveness of the
technology used and how often it is used in table (2). Telephone is in the top as the most
usage followed by internet/intranet and face-to-face meetings and report. It can be seen that
the ones with the highest effectiveness are related with the interaction and communication
with people in addition of the easiness in using of the technology.
In the last 10 years, the challenges emerged to implement IT system compatible with KM perspectives
and needs, but still there is no IT system sufficient enough because of the nature of KM and the
weakness points in IT systems and computers. (Kazi, August 2002) & (Barnes, 2002).
Technology bright and dark challenging side
Mainly, every firm utilized IT as a part of comparable courses yet there was some variety.
One substantial, offices administration organization showed a formal way to deal with IT,
with an authority IT office and the improvement of a corporate intranet to store vital all data
that could be gotten to all through the firm. A corporate intranet is a productive apparatus for
the capacity and stream of unequivocal learning. It has been contended that such an
instrument can improve organization choice making, Furthermore, email was utilized to
impart learning and thoughts over the firm, and remotely with customers and clients.
Notwithstanding, it was contended that most formal IT utilize is moved down with casual IT
utilize, for example, the phone where individuals can impart calmly and develop
compatibility, particularly between workplaces. One participant noticed that: "Innovation is
great in light of the fact that you're advancing yet you shouldn't dismiss the way that you've
ok speak with individuals" (Kazi, August 2002, p. 132)
Regarding to Zyngier about the role of technology in KM: “In a knowledge management
strategy technology is an instrument in a collection of processes that govern the creation,
dissemination and utilisation of knowledge to fulfil organisational objectives”, (Zyngier,
2001, p. 6).
KM and BI tools and technologies
(Rud, 2009)Business intelligence (BI) is the group of tools and techniques for the
transformation of data into useful information and meaningful used in business analysis
purposes and planning which helps in develop and create new strategic business opportunities
by allow the easy interpretation of these large volumes of data.
BI tools categorize
1. OLAP online analytical processing
2. Reporting and querying software
3. Spreadsheets: analysis and storage of data in tabular form and simulations of paper
4. Digital dashboards: showing a graphical presentation of the current status
(snapshot)and historical trends of an organization’s key performance indicators
5. Data warehousing: is a system used for reporting and data analysis and store current
and historical data and are used for creating trending reports for senior management
6. Data mining: extract information from a data set and transform it into an
understandable structure for further use
7. Local information systems: designed primarily to support geographic reporting
Oracle as BI tool
Basically, Oracle Database referred to object-relational database management system.
“At Oracle, we want to help you shift that spending balance. We help you simplify your IT
environment so that you can free up money, time, and resources to invest in innovation. We
do this by providing hardware and software that’s engineered to work together, in the cloud
or on premises” Oracle company message Oracle (1998).
Oracle database products deliver innovative technologies and leading price/performance,
from the enterprise to small workgroups, from the cloud to mobile devices, from super-
clusters to single servers, Oracle (1998).
Oracle (1998) in website documentation, Oracle's latest offerings include multitenant cloud services;
in-memory real-time data management and data analysis; secure intelligent storage solutions; support
for big data and JSON; and more. Regarding Global Software Top 100, as of 2011, Oracle is
the second-largest software maker by revenue, after Microsoft. However, As of 2013 Oracle holds #1
DBMS market share worldwide based on the revenue share ahead of its four closest competitors -
IBM , Microsoft, SAP and Teradata, regarding to Oracle Market Share.
In Forrest consulting company a huge impact of Oracle has been done as shown in the figure.
In conclusion, KM is a managing of the process or the system designed to produce, share and
increase knowledge in the firm. Also, main challenge in KM is to have a KMS which workers
can deal with it and extract with less time and more efficiency. Regarding to the case studies;
KMS are designed and give a positive result and effects on the long term in addition to the
practise of individuals.
Further, learning organization is a philosophy created to make the right environment for
learning and expanding the knowledge on the individual and team level, which breaks the
boundaries of cultural problems or individuals who do not fell the importance of give what
they have on their mind or ask questions, discuss and argue about something. It makes an
environment that spark a feeling in every single individual that he/she is important and what
he/she has in their mind is valuable.
Barnes, S.,( 2002). Knowledge Management Aystems, Theory and Practice. 1st ed. London: Thomson
Barnes, S. (2002) Knowledge Management Systems. 1st .London: Thomson learning, p. 22, Table. 1.3.
Basu, B. & Sengupta, K., (2007). Assessing Success Factors of Knowledge Management. a Case of an
Indian, 5(3), pp. 273-282.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzale, A. & Sabherwal, R., (2004). Knowledge Management, Challenges,
Solutionsm, and Technologies. 1st ed. New Jersey: Person Education.
Benson, S. & Standing, C., (2008). Information Systems: a Business Approach. 3rd ed. India: John
Caokes, E., (2003). Knowledge management: current issues and challenges. 1st ed.
online/31/3/2015: IGI Global.
Carruthers, A. 2015’Week 4: Fifty years of Jet Flight’. ENG4088M Aerospace Manufacturing [Online].
Available at: Bradford.ac.uk (Access: 23 March 2015).
Davenport, Thomas H. (1994). "Saving IT's Soul: Human Centred Information Management". Harvard
Business Review 72 (2): 119–131.
Flood, R. L., (1998). systemic Practice ana Action Research. "Fifth Discipline": Review and Discussion,
11(3), pp. 259-273.
Garvin, D. A., C.Edmonson, A. & Gino, F., (2008). Harvard Business Review. Is Yours Learning
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S. & Aronson, J. E., (2000). Knowledge management; Organizational learning.
Knowledge management: practices and challenges, 100(1), pp. 17-21.
Oracle (1998). ‘Database Documentation.’ Available at: http://docs.oracle.com/en/database/
(Accessed :( 16 April 2015).
Hawryszkiewycs, I., (2010). Knowledge Management, Organizing Knowledge Based Enterprises. 1st
ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hislop, D., (2013). Knowledge Management in Organizations, A critical Introduction. 3rd ed.
Hampshire: Oxford University Press.
Kazi, A. S., August (2002). INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE. Their Usage and
Effectiveness, Volume 7, pp. 125-137.
Larson, P., (1993). Edmonton Journal. Learning organization' concept tantalizes many managers.
McInerney, C., (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), pp. 1009-1018.
Parks, S., (2012). The total economy impact of Oracle Premier support for system, Cambridge:
Headquarter, Forrest research.
Rud, O., (2009). Business Intelligence Success Factors. 2009 ed. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley & Sons.
Senge, P., (2001). The Fifth Discipline. 1st ed. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Singh, J., (2013). Practicing Knowledge Management System. International Journal of Information,
Business and Management, 5(4), pp. 209-230.
Softwaretop100 (2012). "Global Software Top 100 - Edition 2011". Softwaretop100.org.
Retrieved August 23, 2011.
Zyngier, S., (2001). The role of technology in Knowledge Management, Melbourne, Australia: School
of Information Management & Systems, Monash University.