Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, No.
4 (2003) 353–359
c iKMS & World Scientific Publishing Co.
Applying Knowledge Management in Higher Education:
The Creation of a Learning Organisation
Kostas Metaxiotis
Electrical & Computer Engineer, Institute of Communications & Computer Systems,
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Kmetax@epu.ntua.gr
John Psarras
Mechanical Engineer, Institute of Communications & Computer Systems,
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Abstract. Knowledge Management (KM) has recently re-
ceived considerable attention in the computer information
systems community and is continuously gaining interest by
industry, enterprises and academia. As we are moving into
an era of “knowledge capitalism”, knowledge management
in combination with information management will play a
fundamental role towards the success of transforming in-
dividual knowledge into organizational knowledge. Higher
education (HE) institutions are in the knowledge business,
since they are involved in knowledge creation, dissemination
and learning. The increasing economic importance of know-
ledge, which nowadays redefines the links among education,
work and learning, makes the role of KM in HE crucial.
In this framework, this paper presents the key concepts
of human-computer interaction in knowledge management,
discusses their applicability to HE and proposes the creation
of learning organisations in HE institutions, as an innovative
way to apply KM to HE.
Keywords: Knowledge management; Learning organisations;
Higher education.
1. Introduction
Society is entering into an era where the future essen-
tially will be determined by people’s ability to wisely use
knowledge, a precious global resource that is the em-
bodiment of human intellectual capital and technology.
The knowledge-based economy places great importance
on the diffusion and use of information and knowledge,
as well as its creation. In this new economy, individuals
and companies are obliged to focus on maintaining and
enhancing their knowledge capital in order to innovate,
and their ability to learn, adapt and change becomes a
core competency for survival.
Knowledge management (KM) is today the subject
of much literature, discussion, planning and some action
(Nonaka, 1991; Wiig, 1993; Davenport et al., 1998a; and
353
1998b; Leonard, 1999; Metaxiotis et al., 2002). Although
there is a recognition that knowledge is a key business
asset, organizations are still in the early stages of under-
standing the implications of KM, while a fair percentage of
senior managers believe that KM may just be embellished
information management and business process reenginee-
ring (BPR) efforts; many BPR efforts have been failures,
so there is a concern that KM may fall victim to the
same perils. Current research (Nonaka et al., 1995; Kim
et al., 1998; Rollo et al., 2001; Bhatt, 2001) has shown
that a knowledge-based company possesses information
and knowledge that confer a special advantage, allowing it
to maneuver with intelligence, creativity, and occasionally,
cunning. It is well-prepared to sustain its growth and
develop in a dynamic environment. By marshalling the
skills and expertise of its members, it is able to engage in
continuous learning and innovation.
On the other hand, universities and other higher
education institutions are recognized to be in the know-
ledge business (Goddard, 1998) and increasingly they are
exposed to marketplace pressures in a similar way to other
businesses. The role of conventional universities has in
many respects remained unchanged for centuries. Educa-
tion has been seen as a foundation phase in a person’s
life. However, at the year 2000 and beyond, the need for
a vastly expanded education system, the diverse expecta-
tions placed on learning achievements and the revolution
in the methods of learning provide universities with new
roles and new challenges. It may, then, be reasonable to
suppose that KM may have something to offer higher
education institutions. But how?
In this framework, this paper proposes the creation of
learning organisations in HE institutions, as an innovative
way to apply KM to HE. This article commences with a
 Figure 1.
354 K. Metaxiotis and J. Psarras

Data Information Knowledge Wisdom

Fig. 1. Stages of learning evolution.

Figure 1: Stages of learning evolution

discussion on the definition of knowledge, together with a 3. Knowledge Management: Key Issues
consideration of the nature of the KM, based on the review
Knowledge management is based on applying the fullness
of some of the key contributions to the field. Then the
of an
There are two main types of knowledge – explicit and tacit. organisation’s
Everyone has explicitknowledge to its decisions and this
and tacit knowledge.
needs for KM in universities are analysed and the creation
requires working hard to represent it, transfer it, make it
of learning organisations in universities
Explicit knowledge is presented.
is described in formal language, like mathematical expressions and statements in
accessible and encourage its use. According to Davenport
et al. Tacit
textbooks. It consists of technical knowledge or “kno -how”. (1998), KM isisdefined
knowledge automatic,asresembles
follows:
2. What is Knowledge?
intuition and is oral. It is often taken for granted and may be “Knowledge
considered lessmanagement
valuable than is concerned with the
explicit
Knowledge belongs to the family of steadily increasing exploitation and development of the knowledge
invisible corporate assets However,
knowledge. that include management
the effective utilisationsys-
of tacit knowledge i s of
assets essential for competitiveness,
an organization with abutview to further-
tems, patents, brand identity and corporate reputation. ing the organisation’s objectives. The knowledge
the problem is that tacit knowledge is difficult to capture (Frappaolo et al., 2000). It is highl
In the era of knowledge-based economies, it remains to be managed includes both explicit, documented
easier to understand knowledge
personalised, insensitive
context terms of andwhat it istonot
very hard measure and knowledge,
manage. and tacit, subjective knowledge. . .”.
by distinguishing data, information and knowledge.
Learningdifferent
There are many occurs when people share
definitions con-info mationBasically,
their data,
of these a company
and explicit has to manage
and tacit knowledge. The the change and
cepts, available in the literature. In general, data are allow the culture to move towards a structure, which
obvious transfer agent of knowledge – and of tacit knowledge in particular – is the person who has the
considered as raw facts, while information is regarded enables the organisation to transform tacit knowledge
as an organizedknowledge.
set of data.
TheseKnowledge is perceived
knowledge experts convey as into explicit
their tacit knowledge by knowledge; to develop
expressing their the knowledge cycle
beliefs and
meaningful information; or the understanding, awareness, (Fig. 2) and make knowledge available and accessible
perceptions, and by describing and demonstrating their skills and experience.
company-wide (Burk, 1999).
familiarity acquired through study, investigation, observa-
tion or experience over the course of time (Zeleny, 2000). Other authors have sought to take a process, rather
It is an individual’s interpretation of information based than project based perspective to the definition of
3. Knowledge Management : Key Issues KM. Liebowitz (2000) presented a nine-step approach
on personal experiences, skills and competencies. While
wisdom is acquired as an individual gains new knowledge to KM:
Knowledge management is based on applying the fullness of an organisation’s knowledge to its
through the transformation of collective experiences and 1. Transform information into knowledge
expertise (Bierlydecisions
et al., 2000). A model
and this requires of this
working hardprocess is it, 2.
to represent transfer it, make
Identify andit accessible and encourage its
verify knowledge
illustrated in Fig. 1. 3.asCapture
use. According to Davenport et al. (1998), KM is defined follows : and secure knowledge
There are two main types of knowledge — explicit 4. Organize knowledge
and tacit. Everyone has explicit
“Knowledge management andis concerned
tacit knowledge.
with the exploitation and development
5. Retrieve and apply of the knowledge assets
knowledge
Explicit knowledge is described in formal language, like 6. Combine knowledge
of an organization
mathematical expressions with a view in
and statements to textbooks.
furthering the organisation’s objectives. The knowledge to be
7. Create knowledge
It consists of technical knowledge or “know-how”. Tacit
managed includes both explicit, documented knowledge,8.and Learn knowledge
tacit, subjective knowledge…” .
knowledge is automatic, resembles intuition and is oral. 9. Distribute/sell knowledge
It is often takenBasically,
for granted and may
a company has tobemanage
considered lessand allow the culture to move towards a structure,
the change
valuable than explicit knowledge. However, the effective KM is driven by the need to enhance:
which enables the organisation to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge; to develop the
utilisation of tacit knowledge is essential for competi-
• intellectual asset management
tiveness, but theknowledge
problemcycle
is that tacit
(Figure knowledge
2) and is dif-available and accessible compan -wide (Burk, 1999).
make knowledge • operational efficiency
ficult to capture (Frappaolo et al., 2000). It is highly
• customer and competitor intelligence
personalised, context sensitive and very hard to measure
• continuous improvement
and manage.
• organisational learning
Learning occurs when people share their data, in-
• innovation in products and services4
formation and explicit and tacit knowledge. The obvious
• time to market
transfer agent of knowledge — and of tacit knowledge
in particular — is the person who has the knowledge. In general, one of the most important issues in KM
These knowledge experts convey their tacit knowledge by is the organization, distribution and refinement of know-
expressing their beliefs and perceptions, and by describing ledge. Knowledge can be generated by data mining tools,
and demonstrating their skills and experience. can be acquired from third parties, or can be refined and
 Applying Knowledge Management in Higher Education 355

•Publication
•Research Results FIND/CREATE •Conference
•Lessons Learnt •Research
•Specification •Industry Expertise
•Product Performance •Raw Data

USE/REUSE ORGANISE

•Filte
•Search for Examples •Catalog
•Ask a Colleague •Create Outside Link
•Find Exhibit •Document
•Distribute
SHARE •Collaborate
•Resolve

Fig. 2. The cycle of knowledge.

Figure 2: The cycle of knowledge
refreshed. The collected knowledge can then be organized traditional role of universities as providers of knowledge
by indexing the knowledge elements, filtering based on is greatly challenged. Universities must recognise and
content and establishing linkages
Other authors and relationships
have sought among
to take a process, respond
rather than to their
project based changing
perspective to therole in aof knowledge-based
definition
the elements. Then this knowledge is integrated into a society. They need to be consciously and explicitly man-
KM. Liebowitz (2000) presented a nine-step approach to KM:
knowledge base and distributed to the decision support aging the processes associated with the creation of their
applications. The insights resulted from the decision
1. Transform information into knowledge sup- knowledge assets, and to recognise the value of their
port applications are used to refine the existing knowledge intellectual capital to their continuing role in society
and feedback into 2. knowledge
Identify and verify knowledge
organization. (Rowley, 2000).
Another important issue is the knowledge presenta- On the other hand, students no longer are satisfied
3. Capture and secure knowledge
tion. This refers to the ways knowledge is displayed to the with first phase education. Their needs are now increa-
organizational members.
4. Organize Inknowledge
general, an organization may singly seen to be continuous throughout a working life and
devise different procedures to format its knowledge base. embrace personal growth at all stages of an individual’s
5. Retrieve
Because of the different and apply knowledge
presentation styles, organizational life. It is now clear that the future will belong to those
members often find it difficult
6. Combine knowledge
to reconfigure, recombine who can acquire and apply knowledge and skills which
and integrate knowledge from distinct and disparate the global markets demand. Modern students will require
sources. A third7.key point
Create is the knowledge distribution
knowledge regular updating of their knowledge, skills and compe-
and sharing. We should always keep in mind that when tences. In this context, universities will be required to
knowledge within 8. the
Learn knowledge is shared, it becomes
organization expand flexibility and innovative learning and teaching.
cumulative. Information technology
9. Distribute/sell and the Internet have
knowledge
enabled and increased this sharing of knowledge and new, 4.2. The needs for knowledge
emerging technologies can further advance it.
KM is driven by the need to enhance: management in universities
A range of innovations has been evolving since the 1980s
4. Knowledge Management
• intellectual in
asset management and made knowledge management necessary for today’s
Higher Education universities, so that they manage to successfully respond
4.1. Introduction
• operational efficiency to their changing role in a knowledge-based society:
Universities have traditionally had two main roles: creat- • the growth of learner centered knowledge and action
ing knowledge and disseminating knowledge. Research has learning
been the main vehicle for creating knowledge and teaching • the movement from “closed” to “open” 5 knowledge
has been the main vehicle for disseminating knowledge. systems
In today’s rapidly-changing economic environment, the • the growing significance of work-related learning
356 K. Metaxiotis and J. Psarras
Table 1. What is taught in university vs. what is needed in the workplace.
Traditional education Workplace
Requirements Facts Problem solving
Individual effort Team skills
Passing a test Learning how to learn
Achieving a grade Continuous improvement
Receive information Interact and process information
• the recognition of work and work experience as a key
source of learning
• the growth of continuous learning available to all
• the explosion of new computer-based communication
technologies which are able to revolutionalise teaching
and learning practices
Table 1 compares traditional educational and workplace
requirements by examining what is taught in universities
and comparing it with what is needed in the workplace
(Cook et al., 1998).
The nature of work, as we know it, is undergoing pro-
found change today. According to Davies (1998), “Work is
increasingly about how “knowledge” comes to be defined as
“useful” and education itself is viewed as a form of work
which can lead to self-realisation and self-fulfillment at
an individual and existential level”. Knowledge is seen as
neither absolute nor universal; it is local, changing and has
to be re-constructed time after time on the basis of lived,
individual and social experience. It is obvious that where
there is continuous change, there must also be continuous
learning. According to Bourner (1998), there are at least
three important implications for those concerned with
higher education:
1. New knowledge is more tentative than facts that have
been tried and proven over many generations. This
means that the ability to test putative new knowledge
has become more important.
2. As environments change more rapidly, more “know-
ledge” is more ephemeral. Many of today’s truths
become tomorrow’s fallacies.
3. Much of the new knowledge that is required for
problem-solving and decision making is context-
specific. For those concerned with the development
of applicable knowledge the trade-off can be between
broad generalisations that are of doubtful relevance to
urgent problems against significant situational know-
ledge which may not be easily generalised to other
contexts.
In this framework, KM is absolutely necessary to univer-
sities for the following reasons:
• It can create a flexible and innovative relationship and
link between work and education
• It can help students to more closely match their talents
with current workplace demands
• It can contribute to the adaptation and assimilation of
new knowledge with the existing one
• It can contribute to the re-connection of learning with
experience, so that a curriculum reflects the “real time”,
“real place” and “real problems”; work can no longer be
seen as something that happens at a later stage in life.
The important question which now arises is how KM
can be adopted by universities. In the following section,
the authors propose the concept and the creation of
“learning organisations” in higher education institutions,
as an innovative way to apply KM to higher education.
4.3. Learning organisations in
universities
The need for organisations to survive in a changing envi-
ronment has led to the development of the concept of the
“learning organisation”. Pedler et al. (1988) proposed the
following definition of a learning organisation:
An organisation which facilitates the learning
of all its members and continuously transforms
itself.
A learning organisation is one which:
• has a climate in which individual members are encour-
aged to learn and to develop their full potential
• extends this learning culture to include customers,
suppliers and other significant stakeholders
• makes human resource development strategy central to
business policy
• is a continuous process of organisational transforma-
tion.
In summary, a learning organisation is one in which
the learning strategy is more than a human resource or
staff development strategy; it is a core component of all
operations.

On the other hand, universities have traditionally
been defined by their diversity and their role in relation
to knowledge and learning across a range of different
disciplines. We are now moving into an era when such
a lack of focus makes it difficult for universities to be
at the leading edge in all areas of knowledge. However,
knowledge management — through learning organisations
— can represent a golden opportunity for the creation
of interdisciplinary knowledge. But how can a learning
organisation be created in a university?
There is general agreement (Rowley, 1998; Dale, 1994)
that there is no right model of a learning organisation;
a learning organisation cannot be defined in terms of
specific structures or in terms of normative models of
good practice. A learning organisation works to create
values, practices and procedures in which learning and
working are synonymous throughout the organisation.
However, we can present some of the most important
features of such an organisation in a university:
• It is business-oriented, company-structured and closely
linked to the marketplace and the general business
environment. Taking into consideration that the last
40 years has seen the rapid growth of research outside of
universities in enterprises and within industry (ERSC,
1993), education and marketplace/business should be
flexibly linked.
• It aims to “sponsor” the continuous development of
its students’ core competences (mainly postgraduate
students) through their participation in big research
and consulting projects.
• Problem-based learning and project-based learning —
as parts of lifelong learning and action learning — are
of high priority for a learning organisation.
• It seeks co-operation and partnerships with large inter-
national companies and other learning organisations in
the framework of research programmes or consulting
projects, in order to exchange know-how, experience
and innovative ideas and then transfer it to its students
(“employees”).
• It gives increased emphasis on knowledge capture,
storage, sharing, retrieval and use. Examples of all
these activities which are implemented in a learning
organisation are: research, students’ participation in
international conferences, publications, development
of knowledge repositories such as libraries, knowl-
edge databases (including presentations, project pro-
posals, research reports, manuals, lessons learnt, best
practices), knowledge networks, expert systems for
specific problem-solving and knowledge dissemination
and retrieval (Metaxiotis et al., 2003), multimedia
e-mail system, team working, face-to-face discussions,
brainstorming and work group meetings.
Applying Knowledge Management in Higher Education 357
• New forms of Masters and PhDs by research are de-
veloped by a learning organisation. They have a more
business orientation and include necessarily project
work, in order to narrow the current gap between the
needs and expectations of the academic and business
worlds.
All the above underlies the effective operation of the
learning organisation in a university as a business, where
work is viewed as part of a “progressive” curriculum
and not just a paid employment. Through reading,
working, brainstorming and questions posed by students
on “real time” and “real place” problems (knowledge
sharing), professors are pushed in new creative directions
(knowledge creation).
4.4. EPU-NTUA: A successful story in
greek higher education
EPU-NTUA is a multidisciplinary scientific unit, which
carries out research and development projects and pro-
vides consulting services on a wide range of complex
societal and technical problems. The unit operates within
the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of
the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), the
oldest, most prestigious and most competitive higher
education institute in Greece. It was established in 1980
by a core staff (NTUA Professors) that is still responsible
for the steering of its activities. Since then, it is growing
constantly, expanding its spectrum of activities and its
clientele base. Today, more than 20 graduate students,
25 postgraduate students and 50 highly qualified experts
are occupied in EPU-NTUA, ready to offer scientific
consulting services to private and public organisations.
EPU-NTUA, as a learning organization, is charac-
terized by all the key features mentioned in the previous
section; it is business-oriented, company-structured, orga-
nized on KM principles. It collaborates regularly in R&D
and consulting projects with several major European
and American organisations. It is involved in major EU
programmes (TACIS, PHARE, THERMIE, SYNERGY,
SAVE, RACE, ESPRIT, BRITE EURAM) as well as
in national programmes funded by Greek Ministries
(National Economy, Industry, Energy and Technology,
Environment and Urban Planning, Education), Energy
Organisations (electricity, oil and gas sectors), regional
and national authorities, and other public and private
organisations.
EPU-NTUA provides new forms of Masters and
PhDs to its students, who have the opportunity to work
both in research and consulting projects (as junior or
medium experts). Knowledge is captured, stored and
disseminated through a Web-based system; it is updated
358 K. Metaxiotis and J. Psarras
on a regular basis by the postgraduate students in close
co-operation with the highly qualified experts/external
consultants. Face-to-face discussions, brainstorming and
work group meetings are organized on a weekly or
monthly basis for knowledge exchange purposes.
5. Conclusions
Nowadays it seems clear that the rate of generation of new
knowledge in the world is accelerating. The increasing rate
of change means that particular knowledge is not avail-
able in any literature. The literature can not keep pace
with the changes. Simultaneously, work is increasingly the
site where pre-formulated and “textbook knowledge” is
being transformed into new knowledge and where new
paradigms for knowledge and learning are emerging. In
this context, the role and operation of today’s universities
need to be re-fashioned in the mainstream through the use
of knowledge management techniques and practices. The
creation of an organisation in which knowledge manage-
ment activities, such as knowledge creation, transfer and
use, are of high priority seems to be the golden solution.
A learning organisation, based on KM principles,
facilitates the learning of all its members (students and
researchers) and continuously transforms it. Due to its
specific features, a learning organisation is in the position
to develop students who are inquisitive, have flexible
thought processes, are open to new ideas and have self-
motivated creativity. For students, work can no longer be
seen as something that happens at a later stage in life. The
meaning of work is shifting under the new circumstances
which demand learning renewal throughout a working life.
Appropriate ways to monitor the increases and
decreases in the knowledge assets embedded in the
organisation is part of future research. Another part is
the identification of how learning can be assessed and
controlled.
In any case, we should not forget that lifelong lear-
ning or action learning develops all elements of human
competence and is, therefore, authentically part of a
progressive vision of modern life.
References
Bhatt, G (2001). Knowledge management in organiza-
tions: Examining the interaction between technologies,
techniques and people. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 5(1), 68–75.
Bierly, PE, EH Kessler and EW Christensen (2000).
Organisational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Jour-
nal of Organisational Change Management, 13(6),
595–618.
Bourner, T (1998). More knowledge, new knowledge:
The impact on education and training. Education +
Training, 40(1), 11–14.
Burk, M (1999). Knowledge management: Everyone
benefits by sharing information.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/km/prart.htm [11 October].
Cook, J and L Cook (1998). How technology enables the
quality of student-centered learning. Quality Progress,
July, 59–63.
Dale, M (1994). Learning organisations. In Managing
Learning, C Mabey and P Ilies (eds.). London, New
York, NY: Routledge with the Open University.
Davenport, T and L Prusak (1998a). Working Knowledge:
Managing What Your Organisation Knows. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T, D DeLong and M Beers (1998b). Successful
knowledge management projects. Sloan Management
Review, 39(2), 43–57.
Davies, D (1998), The virtual university: A learn-
ing university. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(4),
175–213.
ERSC (1993). Innovation Update Five. Swindon: Eco-
nomic and Social Research Council.
Frappaolo, C and W L Todd (2000). After the gold rush:
Harvesting corporate knowledge resources.
http://www.intelligentkm.com/feature/
feat1.shtml#Case1 [14 November].
Goddard, A (1998). Facing up to market forces. Times
Higher Education Supplement, 13 (November), 6–7.
Kim, W and R Mauborgne (1998). Fair process: Managing
in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review,
July–August, 65–75.
Leonard, D (1999). Wellsprings of Knowledge — Building
and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Liebowitz, J (2000). Building Organizational Intelligence:
A Knowledge Management Primer. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Metaxiotis, K, K Ergazakis, E Samouilidis and J Psarras
(2003). Decision support through knowledge mana-
gement: The role of the artificial intelligence. In-
ternational Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology, (forthcoming).
Metaxiotis, K, J Psarras and S Papastefanatos (2002).
Knowledge and information management in e-learning
environments: The user agent architecture. Infor-
mation Management & Computer Security, 10(4),
165–170.
Nonaka, I (1991). The knowledge-creating company.
Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.
Nonaka, I and H Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge Creat-
ing Company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pedler, M, T Boydell and J Burgoyne (1988). Learning
Company Project Report. Sheffield: Training Agency.
Rollo, C and T Clarke (2001). International Best Prac-
tice: Case Studies in Knowledge Management. Sydney:
Standards Australia.

Rowley, J (1998). Creating a learning organisation in
higher education. Industrial and Commercial Training,
30(1), 16–19.
Rowley, J (2000). Is higher education ready for know-
ledge management? The International Journal of
Educational Management, 14(7), 325–333.
Wiig, K (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations:
Kostas S. Metaxiotis is an Electrical & Computer En-
gineer and Senior Researcher of the National Technical
University of Athens (NTUA). He has wide experience in
database systems & expert systems design and develop-
ment, artificial intelligence, evaluation methods for infor-
mation systems, object-oriented knowledge modelling, in-
ference mechanisms, knowledge management, e-business,
production planning and scheduling. Since 1996 he partic-
ipates in various EC projects within Tacis, Phare, Brite
Programmes as IT expert.
Applying Knowledge Management in Higher Education 359
Thinking about Thinking-How People and Organiza-
tions Create Represent and Use Knowledge. Arlington,
TX: Schema Press.
Zeleny, M (2000). Knowledge vs. information. The IEBM
Handbook of Information Technology in Business,
pp. 162–168. London: Thomson Learning.
John E. Psarras is a Mechanical Engineer and Profes-
sor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering of the National Technical University of Athens
(NTUA). He has wide, international experience in en-
ergy policy analysis, national and regional development
planning, project management and decision support sys-
tems, e-business. Since 1991 he is involved in numerous
activities in PECO and CIS countries concerning energy
planning, energy efficiency, energy technologies, monitor-
ing and evaluation of energy projects, development of e-
solutions and decision support systems.