Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172
www.elsevier.com/locate/omega
Editorial
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning
In the past decade, many journals have published
special issues on knowledge management (KM) and/or
organizational learning (OL). In surveying as many of
these special issues as we could identify, we found that
KM is sometimes treated as a panacea or a fad and that
OL is similarly regarded as either “hype” or as of fun-
damental importance to management. One paper that
we read asks the question, “Is KM still relevant?”, sug-
gesting that it once was, but may not now be. Thus, the
development, achievement and loss of relevance by KM
has apparently occurred in the brief space of a decade
and a half!
We believe that tremendous progress that has
occurred in KM and OL over that period; despite this,
there remain a large number of under-researched topics.
It was based on this belief that we issued the call for
papers for this special issue. We were able to broadly so-
licit KM and OL manuscripts, consider 68 papers from
authors in 21 countries, employ 117 reviewers from 24
countries, many more than once, and choose the best
nine papers to publish in a management science journal.
As befits a journal of OMEGA’s nature and quality, all
of the accepted papers involve rigorous scientific stud-
ies of some aspect of KM and/or OL. None are devoid
of opinion, but none are primarily opinion-based.
The range and quality of the research papers we
received confirm our initial belief that KM continues to
be a strong and viable research field. Papers selected for
this issue address important research questions about
KM and OL that have not been examined systemati-
cally in previous literature. These articles provide new
insights and important empirical findings with respect
to various stages of the KM cycle.
1. KM cycle models
Life cycle models provide a useful way to organize
one’s thinking about KM. There have been numerous
0305-0483/$ - see front matter 䉷 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2006.07.004
KM life cycle models that describe the key aspects of
KM, ranging from Davenport and Prusak’s [1] 3-stage
model (“generate, codify/coordinate, transfer”) to Ward
and Aurum’s [2] 7-stage (“create, acquire, identify, ada-
pt, organize, distribute, apply”). Other similar models
have been presented by Tiwana [3], McElroy [4], Alavi
and Leidner [5], Kucza et al. [6], Meehan and Richard-
son [7], Rus and Lindvall [8], Nissen [9], Edwards
[10], Qureshi et al. [11], and Chang Lee et al. [12].
Our own cycle model, which makes use of parallel
paths in order to make important distinctions, is shown
in Fig. 1. The various activities listed under some of
the major phases are meant to be illustrative and not
necessarily definitional.
The model in Fig. 1 shows that the initiation of the
KM cycle involves either the creation or the acquisition
of knowledge by an organization. Knowledge creation
involves developing new knowledge or replacing exist-
ing knowledge with new content [13]. The focus of this
area of study is usually on knowledge creation inside
the boundary of the firm.
The four bullet points under “creation” refer to Non-
aka’s [13] four modes of knowledge creation—socia-
lization (the conversion of tacit knowledge to new
tacit knowledge through social interactions and shared
experiences), combination (creating new explicit
knowledge by merging, categorizing, and synthesizing
existing explicit knowledge), externalization (convert-
ing tacit knowledge to new explicit knowledge) and
internalization (the creation of new tacit knowledge
from explicit knowledge). Illustrative of these four
modes, respectively, are apprenticeships, literature sur-
vey reports, “lessons learned,” and individual or group
learning through discussions.
In contrast to internal knowledge creation, knowledge
acquisition involves the search for, recognition of, and
assimilation of potentially valuable knowledge, often
from outside the organization [14].
168 Editorial / Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172
Creation
- Socialization
- Externalization
Refinement Storage
- Internalization
- Combination
- Explication
Acquisition - Drawing Inferences
- Encoding
- Evaluation
- Search - Selection for inclusion
- Sourcing
in memory
- Grafting
Fig. 1. KM cycle model.
The bullet points under “acquisition” illustrate
some processes for acquiring knowledge from external
sources—searching, (as on the internet) [15], sourcing
(selecting the source to use) and grafting (adding an
individual who possesses desired knowledge to the
organization) [14].
After new knowledge is created or acquired, KM
mechanisms should be in place to prepare it to be en-
tered into the organization’s memory and for maximal
long-term reusability. Knowledge refinement [16] refers
to the processes and mechanisms that are used to se-
lect, filter, purify and optimize knowledge for inclusion
in various storage media.
Under “refinement” in the figure, the bullet points
suggest that tacit, or implicit, knowledge must be ex-
plicated, codified, organized into an appropriate for-
mat and evaluated according to a set of criteria for in-
clusion into organization memory. Of course, explicit
knowledge needs only to be formatted, evaluated, and
selected.
Knowledge that enters these stores of knowledge be-
comes a part of the organization’s memory. Organiza-
tional memory includes knowledge stored in the minds
of organizational participants, that held in electronic
repositories, that which has been acquired and retained
by groups or teams and that which is embedded in in-
ternal and external relationships and the business’s pro-
cesses, products and services.
In order for knowledge to have wide organiza-
tional impact, it usually must be either transferred or
shared. Transfer and sharing may be conceptualized
as two ends of a continuum. Transfer involves the fo-
cused and purposeful communication of knowledge
from a sender to a known receiver [17]. Sharing is
Transfer
Utilization Organizational
Performance
-Elaboration
-Infusion
Sharing -Thoroughness
(to facilitate)
-Innovation
-Individual Learning
-Collective Learning
-Collaborative Problem-Solving
-Embedding Knowledge
-Creating Dynamic Capabilities
-Knowledge Re Use
less-focused dissemination, such as through a reposi-
tory, to people who are usually unknown to the con-
tributor [18]. Many of the points on the hypothetical
continuum involve some combination of the two pro-
cesses and both processes may involve individuals,
groups or organizations as either senders or receivers, or
both.
Once knowledge is transferred to, or shared with, oth-
ers, it may be used or applied through a process of elab-
oration (the development of different interpretations),
infusion (the identification of underlying issues), and
thoroughness (the development of multiple understand-
ings by different individuals or groups) [19] in order
to be useful in facilitating innovation, collective learn-
ing, individual learning, and/or collaborative problem
solving [20]. It may also be embedded in the practices,
systems, products and relationships of the organization
through the creation of knowledge-intensive organiza-
tional capabilities [21].
OL is complementary to KM. An early view of
OL viewed it as “. . .encoding inferences from his-
tory into routines that guide behavior” [21, p. 319].
Easterby-Smith and Lyles [22] consider OL to focus
on the process and KM to focus on the content of
the knowledge that an organization acquires, creates,
processes and eventually uses. Another way to con-
ceptualize the intersection between the two areas is to
view OL as the goal of KM. By motivating the cre-
ation, dissemination and application of knowledge, KM
initiatives pay off by helping the organization achieve
its goals. From this perspective, OL is one of the
important ways in which the organization can utilize
knowledge, as shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, Dixon [24], in
describing an “OL cycle,” suggested that “accumulated
 Editorial / Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172
knowledge. . . is of less significance than the processes
needed to continuously revise or create knowledge”
(p. 6).
The end (right-side) of the cycle in Fig. 1 de-
picts knowledge having impact on organizational
performance. Those of us who have an academic
interest in KM and OL sometimes forget that or-
ganizational performance improvement is what KM
and OL are, ultimately, all about. Such improve-
ments are the primary basis that organizations use
to judge the value of KM and OL initiatives, and
studies which assess the potential impact of KM–OL
efforts on organizational performance may be useful
to business executives who are considering or evalu-
ating such efforts. Studies which focus on the mid-
dle parts of the model should be useful to business
executives who are designing or managing KM–OL
efforts.
2. Contents of the special issue
The nine papers selected for this special issue focus
on various subsets of the KM life cycle. They are each
summarized briefly with special attention as to how they
“map” onto the life cycle model of Fig. 1.
The first paper, “Exploring the Determinants of
Potential Absorptive Capacity and its Impact on In-
novation Performance” by Fosfuri and Tribo, deals
with the overall process described in Fig. 1—from the
acquisition of external knowledge to the utilization
of that knowledge in producing innovations. It deals
with knowledge transfer, not in the internal organi-
zation as is implied in the model, but primarily as a
search–transfer process of acquiring external knowl-
edge in a firm-to-firm transfer process. It also deals with
knowledge sharing within the firm in terms of “social
integration mechanisms” that can influence the internal
process.
The study uses absorptive capacity in its two
forms—potential and realized—to better understand
their determinants and hence, their effect on the inno-
vation performance of the firm. Data supporting this
study come from the Community Innovation Survey
administered by INE, the Spanish Institute of Statistics.
As a result, the researchers were able to study 2464
innovative Spanish firms.
This is an important study involving the use of sec-
ondary data. The authors suggest replication opportuni-
ties in other European nations in which the same data
have been collected.
The second paper, “Internationalization and Per-
formance: The Moderating Effects of Organizational
169
Learning” by Hsu and Pereira, focuses on the link
between an important “external” factor, internation-
alization, and firm performance. It tests the moder-
ating effect of organizational learning on that link.
In effect, they study a significant behavior of the
firm—internationalization—as a means of acquiring
new knowledge and investigate the impact of OL in
mitigating the “liability of foreignness” in producing
improved organizational performance. So, in terms
of the KM cycle model, the focus is on the learning
process and the far-right block on the diagram.
The research model considers economic antecedents
of internationalization and three varieties of OL as they
relate to performance. A mail survey of 110 American
multinational firms was conducted to obtain data to test
hypotheses related to the influence of the antecedents on
internationalization, the overall impact of internation-
alization on performance and the moderating effects of
social, technological and market learning on that rela-
tionship.
The third paper, “Trust in Management and Knowl-
edge Sharing: the Mediating Effects of Fear and Knowl-
edge Documentation” by Renzl, focuses on knowledge
sharing within and between teams. The influence of
“trust in management” on sharing is studied in terms of
the mediating effects of the fear of losing one’s unique
value and of knowledge documentation. Data were col-
lected from two companies using internally-distributed
survey instruments. Data were obtained from 133 and
68 respondents who were participants in knowledge-
intensive projects that involved significant knowledge
sharing. The results add to our understanding of the sig-
nificant influence of trust on sharing behavior by detail-
ing how trust’s impact is mediated by a reduction in fear
and the willingness to document knowledge. The obvi-
ous focus of this paper is on the “knowledge sharing”
element of Fig. 1.
The fourth paper, “The Influence of Organizational
Identification on Organizational KM” by Nagaraja and
Pan, studies the influence of organizational identifica-
tion with one’s own employer—in this case, an out-
sourcing vendor—and with a client firm on professional
employees’ compliance with their organization’s KM
initiative. As such, it focuses on the entirety of the cy-
cle model in Fig. 1. The case study was conducted over
an intensive 7-month period in a leading Indian IT firm.
The results show that employees have difficulty in com-
plying with the expectations of the vendor’s KM ini-
tiative because of their strong identifications with their
client organizations. At the same time, they comply
readily with KM initiatives at the business unit level.
This case study provides insight into the significant
170 Editorial / Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172
issues of professionals whose jobs lead them to identifi-
cations with two enterprises—their employer and their
client. Management strategies in such circumstances in-
volving the compartmentalization and preservation of
both identities are illustrated as means of improving KM
compliance.
The fifth paper, “Effects of KM Strategy on Organiza-
tional Performance: A Complementarity Theory-Based
Approach” by Choi, Poon, and Davis, uses economic
complementarity theory to assess the effects of KM
strategy on firm performance. KM strategies are identi-
fied using the well-known personalization-codification
dichotomy (termed “tacit” versus “explicit” here) and
their external versus internal focus.
One hundred fifteen (115) Korean firms’ annual
corporation reports were sampled and a survey instru-
ment was sent to the managers responsible for KM
in each. The data were analyzed in a three-stage pro-
cess involving clustering based on strategy type, the
relationship of strategy type to performance and com-
plementarity. The results indicate that firms that follow
a “mix” of personalization (“tacit”)—internal and cod-
ification (“explicit”)—external KM strategies achieve
the best performance. This is somewhat counter to the
well-known “do not straddle” prescription of Hansen
et al. [23].
The sixth paper, “Semantic Network Representation
of Computer-Mediated Discussions: Conceptual Facil-
itation Form and Knowledge Acquisition” by Khalifa
and Liu, treats the effect of computer-mediated dis-
cussions on knowledge acquisition by focusing on
discussion representation. Semantic network discussion
representations are compared to the more traditional
threaded representations. A field experiment is used to
conclude that semantic network discussion representa-
tions enable the acquisition of more complex and better
integrated knowledge structures than do more typi-
cal threaded representations. Conceptual facilitation,
the validation of the conceptual organization of the
discussion, at various levels of restrictiveness, is also
found to be significant. These conclusions may demon-
strate the importance of discussion representation in
computer-mediated discussion processes and outcomes.
The authors also suggest guidelines for the selection
of appropriate conceptual facilitation in discussion
forums used in the knowledge acquisition phase of
Fig. 1.
The seventh paper, “Knowledge Transfer and OL in
IS Offshore Sourcing” by Chau and Pan, deals with
knowledge transfer and OL in the context of offshore
sourcing. It describes a case study in which the global
information systems (IS) department of a multinational
bank transferred its business application support and de-
velopment knowledge to a new location. An IS “body of
knowledge” framework is used to describe how knowl-
edge is transferred in each of five areas—technology,
application domain, IS application and organizational
and IS development process. The study adopts an OL
perspective in treating the knowledge transfer element
of the model in Fig. 1.
The eighth paper, by Kjaergaard and Kautz, “A
Process Model of Establishing KM: Insights from a
Longitudinal Field Study” focuses on a case study of
establishing KM in an organization. Based on a
grounded theory approach, a model for establishing
KM is developed and used to suggest why the pro-
cess was not effective. Conclusions are drawn from
this “failure experience.” In particular, the study shows
how an organization’s identity and culture can have
significant implications for how employees make sense
of management’s reactions to their efforts to establish
KM, and how such efforts may fail even when there are
enthusiastic employees, mature use of IT, and a culture
known for valuing knowledge.
The last paper, “The Effect of Alliance Experience
and Intellectual Capital on the Value Creation of In-
ternational Strategic Alliances” by Chang, Chen, and
Lai, investigates the effects of intellectual capital and
strategic alliance experience on the value creation
of international strategic alliances. A sample of 634
US firms initiating non-equity involved international
strategic alliances over the period 1989–2000 was
used to perform an event study, in which the wealth
effect of the announcements was calculated by mul-
tiplying the abnormal returns on the firm’s equity on
the announcement day and the day prior to the an-
nouncement by the market value of the firm’s equity
10 days before the announcement. The results suggest
that experience with international strategic alliances
does create value for firms engaging in subsequent
international strategic alliances, but this effect of expe-
rience is moderated by the firm’s level of intellectual
capital.
This study addresses the left side of the KM life cy-
cle in Fig. 1 by considering knowledge created through
experience with international strategic alliances. In
directly measuring wealth creation effects, it also
addresses “Organizational Performance,” the final ele-
ment in the model. The measure of intellectual capital
utilized in this study, pseudo Tobin’s q, can be under-
stood as representing a firm’s capability to take the
knowledge created from experience and translate it
into improved firm performance through the various
elements in the middle of the model.
 Editorial / Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172 171

Reviewers

Norm Archer Rudy Hirschheim James Pick

Pierre-Jean Barlatier Donald Hislop Jacqueline Pike
James Bloodgood Bryan Hosack John Powell
Gee Woo Bock Rob Huggins Sajda Qureshi
Harry Boer Brian Janz Chandrasekaran Ranganathan
Nick Bontis Francisco Javier Carrillo Ulrich Reimer
Marianne Bradford Rene Jorna Yuqing Ren
Beverly Brockman Jerry Kane Eliot Rich
Brian Butler Shamim Khan Russ Robbins
Arturo Calvo de Mora Schmidt Shahadat Khan Jose Miguel Rodríguez Antón
Jason Chen Junmo Kim Tapie Rohm
Tim Chenoweth William King Rajiv Sabherwal
Byounggu Choi Laurie Kirsch Powpaka Samart
Vivek Choudury Dong-Gil Ko Ulrike Schultze
T. Rachel Chung Vincent Lai Siu King David Schwartz
Jenny Darroch Karl Lang Jennifer Shang
Joseph Davis David Lei Namchul Shin
Gail Derrick Bill Lekse Miguel-Angel Sicilia
Kevin Desouza Natalia Levina Miha Skerlavaj
Rod Dilnutt Binshan Lin Martin Smits
Eirini Doumpoulaki Helena Lindskog Manuel Sosa
Rick Edgeman Stefanie Lindstaedt J.C. Spender
Leif Edvinsson Henry Linger John Spillan
John Edwards Pedro Lopez Saez Jacky Swan
Phillip Ein-Dor Iuan-Yuan Lu Chih-Hung Tsai
Ricardo Falbo Denise Luethge Joe Valacich
Emilio Fontela Patricia Maher Ernst Verwaal
Robert Galliers Ronald Maier Christian Wagner
Peter Geib Yogesh Malhotra Robin Wakefield
Gerald George Gregorio Martin de Castro Ron Weber
Andrew Gold Jerry May Anthony Wensley
Kevin Grant Jose Montes Peon Fons Wijnhoven
Peter Gray Denis Moura Yiannis Xenidis
Ray Hackney Nikolaos Mylonopoulos Hong Xiao
Meliha Handzic Sue Newell Kuan Yew Wong
Mark Haney Ilan Oshri Michael Zack
Susan Harrington Maria Paz Salmador Stefano Zambon
Niall Hayes Parag Pendharkar Tongxiao Zhang
Raine Hermans Susana Perez Lopez Robert Zmud

Acknowledgments Ann Brooks, who managed the reviewing process and

We wish to thank the many authors who contributed
papers. Because of space limitations, many good pa-
pers could not be accepted. We take solace in the
fact that many of these were vastly improved in the
review–revision process, so we are confident that they
will be published elsewhere.
The reviewers did a magnificent job in preparing
substantive, insightful reviews—some as many as four
times on a single paper.
kept track of everything, was always prepared to provide
a real-time status report on the progress of the issue.
And Ben Lev, the OMEGA editor-in-chief was fully sup-
portive throughout the entire year-and-a-half process.
We are grateful to all.
References
[1] Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how
organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press; 2000.
172 Editorial / Omega 36 (2008) 167 – 172
[2] Ward J, Aurum A. Knowledge management in software
engineering—describing the process. In: 15th Australian
software engineering conference (ASWEC 2004). Melbourne.
Australia: IEEE Computer Society Press; 2004. p. 137–46.
[3] Tiwana A. The knowledge management toolkit: practical
techniques for building a knowledge management system. USA:
Prentice Hall; 2000.
[4] McElroy MW. The new knowledge management. Knowledge
and innovation. Journal of the KMCI 2000;1(1):43–67.
[5] Alavi M, Leidner DE. Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research
issues. MIS Quarterly 2001;25(1):107–36.
[6] Kucza T, Nättinen M, Parviainen P. Improving knowledge
management in software reuse process. Third international
conference on product focused software process improvement.
Kaiserslautern, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
vol. 2188. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 141–52.
[7] Meehan B, Richardson R. Identification of software process
knowledge management. Software Process Improvement and
Practice 2002;7:47–55.
[8] Rus I, Lindvall M. Knowledge management in software
engineering. IEEE Software 2002;19(3):26–38.
[9] Nissen ME. An extended model of knowledge-flow dynamics.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
2002;8:251–66.
[10] Edwards JS. Managing software engineers and their knowledge.
In: Aurum A et al., editor. Managing software engineering
knowledge. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 5–27.
[11] Qureshi S, Hlupic V, Briggs RO. On the convergence of
knowledge management and groupware. 10th International
Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG’2004). San Carlos, Costa
Rica, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3198. Berlin:
Springer; 2004. p. 25–33.
[12] Chang Lee K, Lee S, Won Kang I. KMPI: measuring
knowledge management performance. Information Management
2005;42(3):469–82.
[13] Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. Organizational Science 1994;5(1).
[14] Huber GP. Organizational learning: the contributing processes
and the literatures. Organization Science 1999;2(1):88–115.
[15] Menon T, Pfeffer J. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge:
explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science
2003;49(4):497.
[16] Zack MH. Developing a knowledge strategy. California
Management Review 1999;41(3):125–45.
[17] King WR. Knowledge sharing. The Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management. Schwartz DG, editor. Idea Group Publishing;
2006. p. 493–8.
[18] King WR. Knowledge transfer. The Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management. Schwartz DG, editor. Idea Group Publishing;
2006. p. 538–43.
[19] King WR, Ko D-G. Evaluating knowledge management and the
learning organization: an information/knowledge value chain
approach (with D. Ko) Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, May, 2001.
[20] King WR. Communications and information processing
as a critical success factor in the effective knowledge
organization. International Journal of Business Information
Systems 2005;10(5):31–52.
[21] Levitt B, March JG. Organizational learning. Annual Review
of Sociology 1988;14:319–40.
[22] Easterby-Smith M, Lyles M, editors. The blackboard handbook
of organizational learning and knowledge management. Oxford:
Blackwell Published; 2003.
[23] Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T. What’s your strategy
for managing knowledge?. Harvard Business Review
1999;77(2):106–16.
[24] Dixon NM. Organizational learning: A review of the literature
with applications for IRD practices. Human Resources
Development Quarterly 1994;1:28–49.
Guest Editor
William R. King
Associate Editors
T. Rachel Chung,
Mark H. Haney
Katz Graduate School of Business,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
E-mail addresses: billking@katz.pitt.edu (W.R. King),
rachel.chung@gmail.com (T.R. Chung),
mhaney@katz.pitt.edu (M.H. Haney).