While scholars agree on the complexity of knowledge management processes (KMPs), achieving a comprehensive understanding of these processes and how they integrate into the core organizational processes still proves challenging. In response to this research gap, this study presents a pioneering, inductive exploration into the views of chief knowledge officers (CKOs).
We employed an interpretative multiple-case study methodology, conducting semi-structured interviews with 28 CKOs across diverse industry sectors. Thematic analysis was utilized to analyze the data.
The CKOs’ insights reveal that the degree of “superposition and overlap” between KMPs and business processes is pivotal to the effectiveness of both knowledge management (KM) and business operations. The study introduces the concept of “transparent KM,” where KM becomes an imperceptible yet indispensable element of the organizational structure. This challenges the conventional notion of KM as an isolated discipline and highlights the dangers of artificially segregating KMPs from core business processes, which can result in employee disengagement and managerial doubts about the value of KM.
This research contributes to a novel vision of KM, advocating for the seamless integration of KMPs into organizational processes. It suggests that KM should be considered a ubiquitous force that naturally enhances organizational workflows. Scholars, practitioners and company leaders, in designing business processes, should take into consideration their KM implications and, in turn, potentially reshaping the strategic role of KM in organizations.
1. Introduction
Some scholars view the concept of process as a key pillar of knowledge management (KM) (Rehman et al., 2021). A widely accepted model posits that successful KM performance hinges on the synergistic interplay of processes, human factors, and technological infrastructure (Al Mansoori et al., 2021; Dalkir, 2017; Edwards, 2015). Knowledge management processes (KMPs) are instrumental in preserving and disseminating critical business knowledge within the organizational ecosystem (Nakash et al., 2023; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023). Drawing on the knowledge-based view of the firm (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Grant, 1996), KMPs are not merely operational tools but strategic levers that profoundly influence organizational dynamics. Empirical studies have consistently unearthed significant positive correlations between effective KMPs and a constellation of organizational virtues, including innovation, performance, productivity, and operational efficiency (Al-Qubaisi and Ajmal, 2018; Al-Qatawneh et al., 2019; Al Yami et al., 2022; Alves et al., 2024; Anand and Singh, 2011; Areed et al., 2021; Migdadi, 2022; Lee et al., 2005; Rehman et al., 2021; Sahibzada and Mumtaz, 2023).
The literature has highlighted the multifaceted nature of KMPs (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Holsapple and Singh, 2003), and a unified, holistic perspective on these processes remains elusive (Scarso and Bolisani, 2023). Scholars often converge on four core processes—knowledge creation, documentation, sharing, and application— but yet diverge on terminology and delineation (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Anand and Singh, 2011; Areed et al., 2021). In addition to this unresolved conceptual fragmentation, research has not yet clarified the dynamic relationships between typical business processes and KMPs, and how these integrate and complement each other. In other words, there is a need to integrate KMPs into a more comprehensive view that transcends the rigid strict delimitation between KMPs and other business processes in the organizational framework (Atkočiūnienė et al., 2022; Budur et al., 2024).
The current study addresses this gap by offering a novel perspective on KM integration in the organizational environment. Through in-depth interviews with 28 Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs) across diverse sectors, we uncover a paradigm-shifting vision of “transparent KM”. This concept challenges the traditional view of KM as a separate set of activities, reimagining it as an intrinsic, almost imperceptible component of the organizational fabric. Much like the air we breathe, “transparent KM” is envisioned as a ubiquitous force that seamlessly enhances organizational processes. This perspective extends beyond current discussions of KM integration, which often focus on technological interoperability or process alignment. Instead, it posits a future where the boundaries between KM and the other core organizational or business processes are overcome. It is argued that KM should become so seamlessly integrated and “natural” within organizational processes that it becomes almost imperceptible, yet remaining an essential component. Consequently, there is a need to develop new methods to harmoniously design and embed KMPs into core organizational activities. This vision challenges established theoretical frameworks that see KM as a sort of parallel and detached domain.
The originality of this study also lies in its methodological approach. By focusing on the perspectives of CKOs, we gain insights from those at the forefront of strategic KM implementation. Their role involves not only the oversight of KMPs, but also the integration of these processes into the broader organizational strategy. By engaging with CKOs, this research taps into a wellspring of executive wisdom and practical experience, offering a rare glimpse into the strategic considerations that shape the knowledge landscape of organizations. Their vision challenges both scholars and practitioners to fundamentally rethink the design of knowledge work and organizational processes. It moves the discourse beyond the mechanics of KMPs to the broader question of how organizations can cultivate environments where knowledge thrives as an organic, inherent part of work itself.
The structure of this paper is organized in the following manner: Initially, we lay the foundational theoretical context pertinent to the research subject (Section 2). This is succeeded by an in-depth delineation of the methodological approaches employed (Section 3). Subsequently, we delineate our empirical results (Section 4), which lead into an analytical discourse (Section 5). The paper concludes by drawing inferences, discussing the broader ramifications, and suggesting prospective directions for ensuing scholarly inquiry (Section 6).
2. Literature review
2.1 KM and its dynamics: navigating the knowledge economy
KM synthesizes theories from strategic management, information systems, computer science, economics, organizational psychology, among others (Bolisani et al., 2023; Straccia et al., 2023). It embodies a multidisciplinary strategy to realize business objectives through the judicious employment of knowledge (Lee et al., 2005). The goals of KM are manifold: enhancing operational efficiency, bolstering competitiveness, refining decision-making processes, and stimulating innovation within organizations (Areed et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2018; Lee and Wong, 2015; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023; Wei Chong et al., 2011). The domain of KM has captivated scholarly and professional interest alike, showcasing remarkable resilience and an enduring vibrancy (Chatzoudes et al., 2015). Despite early prognostications of its transient nature or impending obsolescence, KM has proven to be not only resilient but also flourishing (Bolisani et al., 2023; Dalkir, 2017; Handzic, 2017; Nakash and Bouhnik, 2020). The seismic shift to remote work, a direct consequence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, has acted as a catalyst for market growth, significantly enhancing the adoption of KM solutions across the globe (Nakash and Bouhnik, 2023).
Since its inception, KM has been interpreted as a meta-level of management (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Within any organizational context, there are essential elements and activities that require management: people, technologies, processes, products, projects, and more. Each of these components necessitates and embodies knowledge, which is processed by employees across various levels and roles. While some activities are operational and routine, others are complex, demand significant creativity, and have substantial cognitive implications. For these roles, the term “knowledge worker” was aptly coined by Drucker in 1969. Knowledge workers are individuals whose primary job involves handling and using information to solve complex problems and generate new ideas. Their work is crucial in driving innovation, improving processes, and maintaining a competitive edge in today’s knowledge-based economy (Arthur et al., 2008; Turriago-Hoyos et al., 2016).
Regardless of the specific activity, all management tasks necessitate some form of knowledge processing, whether simple or complex. According to the knowledge-based view of organizations (Grant, 1996), knowledge is a critical resource whose effective management is essential for managing other core resources and activities within the company. From this perspective, KM itself becomes a “meta-management” level, meaning that to manage a company’s core resources effectively, we also need to manage all the knowledge that their management entails (Wiig, 1997). Based on this, it can be said that an effective KM organization and the strong performance of the resources dedicated to it become essential for the overall performance of the organization (Andreeva and Kianto, 2016). Furthermore, strategic thinking prompted managers to implement systematic knowledge strategies as a core component of business strategies, effectively leveraging intangible resources (Bratianu, 2022). This is why many companies have invested in activities and roles specifically dedicated to KM.
In fact, the importance and significance of KM as a specific activity of management in businesses is growing. This is also evidenced by the growth of the global market for KM services and technologies. The imperative of customer retention and satisfaction, in tandem with the heightened emphasis on skill enhancement and employment, are propelling the market forward. In 2021, the market was valued at an impressive $405,000m and is forecasted to burgeon to $1,100,000m by 2027, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 18.12% (Business Research Insights, 2024). Projections for 2022 estimated the KM market at $474.295.5m, with expectations of a significant growth spurt, reaching $1,286,780.0m by 2028 (Industry Research, 2023). Further projections anticipate a meteoric rise at a CAGR of 19.9%, with the market reaching a monumental US$ 4tn by 2033 (FactMr, 2024).
2.2 KMPs at the center of KM
The robust growth trajectory of KM highlights the indispensable role of KMPs, recognized as one of the three key components of KM (Edwards, 2015) for both research and practice. These components include people and their knowledge, information technologies supporting KM, and processes that ensure KM excellence (Nakash et al., 2023). In fact, the scientific debate has yielded a plethora of definitions that permeate various professional domains (Anand and Singh, 2011; Bolisani et al., 2023; Dalkir, 2017; Edwards, 2015). However, a process-oriented perspective often dominates these definitions, viewing knowledge as a strategic asset that must be effectively processed to become integral to organizational success. For example, KM has been encapsulated as “the process of capturing, storing, sharing, and using knowledge” (Lee, 2001, p. 324). In other words, KM is sometimes seen as a process by definition.
Others (e.g. Hesamamiri et al., 2015) describe it as encompassing the discovery, capture, sharing, and application of knowledge. Yang (2010) views KM as the generation, collection, and production of organizational knowledge to forge new opportunities and bolster organizational performance. These definitions of KM, once again, are centered on the notion of process. In short, these exemplary interpretations converge on the notion that KM comprises a suite of processes that, consequently, necessitate full recognition and meticulous management (Bolisani et al., 2023). Ultimately, KMPs crystallize as the strategic nexus between KM and the organization, translating the vast reservoirs of knowledge into a competitive weapon and a key to innovation, thereby charting the course for sustainable growth. Nonetheless, their implementation is not without its challenges, as it demands appropriate fitting to the key business processes and, sometimes, profound transformations in organizational culture, structure, and technological frameworks (Hesamamiri et al., 2015).
2.3 Elucidating the architecture of KMPs
Although, as we also argue in this paper, KMPs should be integrated into the overall business process system (Massingham and Al Holaibi, 2017), for research purposes, they are often extracted from the complexities of real-life scenarios and treated as they are standalone processes, to enable more effective analysis (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Holsapple and Singh, 2003). In recent decades, a pronounced divergence in perspectives has characterized the discourse on possible taxonomies of KMPs (Bolisani and Bratianu, 2018). A wide spectrum of scholars has articulated a comprehensive range of KMPs, often attributing distinct nomenclature to processes with convergent functions (Al Yami et al., 2022; Kassaneh et al., 2021; Paulin and Suneson, 2012). Nevertheless, certain KMPs have only been mentioned marginally in the literature. For example, knowledge evaluation, which entails the appraisal of the quality, relevance, and applicability of knowledge within an organization, is often overlooked (Gao et al., 2018). Similarly, the process of knowledge codification—converting tacit knowledge into explicit, readily accessible forms such as documents or databases—has not garnered substantial attention (Fombad and Sirorei, 2019; Rehman et al., 2021). Additionally, knowledge protection, which focuses on the preservation of vital knowledge against misappropriation, replication, or attrition, is scarcely discussed (Kassaneh et al., 2021).
Conversely, other KMPs have achieved broader consensus among a significant cadre of KM researchers. These more central and foundational processes are well-documented in both theoretical and empirical studies (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Edwards, 2015; Gao et al., 2018; Kassaneh et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2005; Paulin and Suneson, 2012; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023). The review carried out below will concentrate on these widely recognized processes: creation, documentation, sharing, and application of knowledge. Each process is a critical step in the lifecycle of knowledge within an organization.
2.3.1 Knowledge creation
Knowledge creation within organizations is a multifaceted process that involves generating new ideas and solutions, both from scratch and through the reconfiguration of existing knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; Gold et al., 2001; Straccia et al., 2023). This expansion of the organizational knowledge base is fueled by internal and external sources, encompassing the collection of best practices and the integration of both explicit and tacit knowledge (Lee et al., 2005; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023). Knowledge creation, also termed “knowledge acquisition” by some scholars, is facilitated by a culture that values continuous learning, idea development, and creativity (Areed et al., 2021; Wei Chong et al., 2011; Bolisani and Bratianu, 2018). However, others view knowledge acquisition more narrowly as the assimilation of external knowledge from sources like customers, suppliers, and competitors, and its subsequent integration within the organization (Al-Qubaisi and Ajmal, 2018; Gold et al., 2001; Holsapple and Singh, 2003; Lee and Wong, 2015; Rehman et al., 2021).
2.3.2 Knowledge documentation
Knowledge documentation is a crucial process for preserving organizational knowledge, ensuring its future accessibility and reusability within repositories or information systems (Fombad and Sirorei, 2019). This process, also known as “knowledge storage,” “knowledge retention,” or “knowledge capture,” is fundamental to organizing and structuring knowledge, thus forming the foundation of organizational memory and database infrastructures (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bolisani and Bratianu, 2018; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023). It includes a wide range of content, from lessons learned to codified procedures, and requires methods for maintaining and updating knowledge repositories, as well as removing outdated information. In light of potential knowledge loss due to employee turnover, there is an emphasis on transforming tacit knowledge into explicit formats and methodically storing it in organizational knowledge management systems (KMSs). This is further enhanced by developing taxonomies, ontologies, and knowledge maps for efficient retrieval, as well as term encoding within a semantic link network to illustrate concept relationships (Al Yami et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2018; Nakash, 2024; Nakash et al., 2023; Zhuge, 2011).
2.3.3 Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is a critical process that transfers knowledge among employees and units to boost efficiency and foster mutual learning (Kassaneh et al., 2021; Rehman et al., 2021). Although there are in principle some differences, the term knowledge sharing is often considered synonymous with or related to “knowledge transfer,” “knowledge dissemination,” “knowledge distribution”, or “knowledge exchange”. It is an essential process for making knowledge accessible when necessary (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; Bhatt, 2001; Fombad and Sirorei, 2019; Gao et al., 2018; Kassaneh et al., 2021; Paulin and Suneson, 2012; Scarso and Bolisani, 2012, 2023; Wei Chong et al., 2011). Effective KM depends on successful knowledge sharing, which is vital for organizational performance and innovation (Areed et al., 2021; Bolisani et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2005; Lee and Wong, 2015; Swacha, 2015). Knowledge sharing can occur through formal methods like training or mentoring, or informally via communities of practice or social networking tools (Scarso and Bolisani, 2020; Wei Chong et al., 2011). However, promoting knowledge sharing is challenging due to personal motivations and the potential withholding of knowledge by employees (Gao et al., 2018; Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010; Swacha, 2015).
2.3.4 Knowledge application
Knowledge application, or the actualization of knowledge, is the process of translating organizational knowledge into practical action, referred also to as “knowledge utilization” or “knowledge internalization” (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Gao et al., 2018; Gold et al., 2001). It involves using and embedding knowledge within organizational processes, products, or services for problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation, thereby leveraging it for strategic benefits (Al-Qubaisi and Ajmal, 2018; Al Yami et al., 2022; Grant, 1996; Lee et al., 2005; Lee and Wong, 2015; Rehman et al., 2021; Straccia et al., 2023). Considered the maximize of the KM output, knowledge application is essential for making knowledge active and relevant in creating value for the firm, as it employs accumulated knowledge, expertise, and experience to support the organization’s goals and performance (Al-Qatawneh et al., 2019; Bhatt, 2001; Mills and Smith, 2011). This process embeds the organization’s knowledge into economically valuable outputs like new products, improved processes, and marketing plans (Scarso and Bolisani, 2023).
2.4 Reframing KM: the journey towards “transparent KM”
In the discourse of this article, the term “transparent KM” is recontextualized to emphasize a process-oriented approach, but with a special focus compared to prior interpretations. While Aiello et al. (2018) explored the term within the realm of enhancing governmental transparency and citizen services, and Oravec (2004) discussed transparency in relation to open and reflective knowledge work, this article posits a novel perspective. Here, “transparent KM” is construed as the crystalline integration of KMPs within the tapestry of organizational and business processes as these are typically considered in management. It is a paradigm where KMPs are not only visible but are also seamlessly woven into the operational fabric, enhancing clarity and coherence in organizational activities. This fresh perspective signals a paradigmatic shift, elevating “transparent KM” beyond conventional limits to a vibrant nexus of KMPs, thereby steering the organization towards a future where adaptability and continuous learning are embedded in its essence.
The insights of Davar and Pandey (2020) into transparency concerning content development call for collaborative team efforts to facilitate smooth knowledge mapping and bridge knowledge voids. Our reconceptualization of “transparent KM,” however, underscores the significance of clarity and integration, positioning KMPs as pivotal elements that are both conspicuous and harmoniously aligned with organizational dynamics. The forthcoming sections of this article will elucidate this stance, detailing how “transparent KM” serves as a catalyst for organizational synergy, where knowledge is not merely managed but is an innate and fluid aspect of organizational life, fostering an ecosystem where knowledge is as natural and essential as the organizational structure itself. In essence, “transparent KM” is the embodiment of an organizational ethos where KM is not an adjunct but a central artery, pulsating with the lifeblood of the organization’s purpose and progress. Although the literature increasingly recognizes the need to make KMPs visible and evident throughout the entire fabric of organizational processes, and to integrate them into a more comprehensive view that transcends the rigid strict delimitation between KMPs and other business processes (Atkočiūnienė et al., 2022; Budur et al., 2024), research on this point remains insufficient. In other words, despite it can be obvious to admit that any business process requires some use or elaboration of knowledge, the explicit recognition of KMPs as integral part of business and organizational processes remains generic or ambiguous.
3. Methodology
3.1 Purpose and questions
To fill the above-mentioned gap, the overarching objective of this research is to explore the experiential landscape of CKOs as they navigate KMPs within organizational settings. Specifically, to achieve a nuanced understanding, the study is guided by the following sub-questions:
What significances do CKOs ascribe to the integration of KMPs within organizational processes? This question seeks to uncover the perceived value and implications of embedding KMPs in daily operations from the perspective of those at the helm of KM strategy.
What are the potential risks associated with the absence of such integration? This inquiry delves into the consequences and challenges that may arise when KMPs are not effectively incorporated, as identified by CKOs.
How do CKOs envision the trajectory of KMPs going forward? This question aims to gather insights on the anticipated developments, trends, and future directions of KMPs as foreseen by CKOs.
Through these sub-questions, the study endeavors to capture the intricate realities and strategic considerations of CKOs in relation to the deployment and evolution of KMPs in the organizational sphere.
3.2 Research design
Given the inherent subjectivity of our research topic and the limited existing literature, we recognized the necessity of prioritizing a profound exploration of participants’ experiences and interpretations regarding KMPs over a quantitative analysis. In pursuit of our research objectives, we deemed an investigative approach imperative (Yin, 2018). Consequently, our study was structured upon an inductive methodology, aligning with the principles of the interpretative paradigm. This methodological choice was driven by our aspiration to comprehensively grasp the intricate nature of the phenomenon under investigation and to explore it from diverse perspectives. Hence, we adopted the qualitative multiple-case study method (Baskarada, 2014), allowing for a nuanced understanding of KMPs. The units of analysis under scrutiny are the perspectives of individual CKOs operating in different organizational contexts.
In the design of this research, the focus on CKOs is intentional and pivotal. CKOs are uniquely positioned at the nexus of strategic decision-making and KM within organizations, providing them with a comprehensive overview of the integration, challenges, and future of KMPs. Their insights are invaluable due to their direct involvement in shaping and steering the KM agenda, which is central to organizational learning and innovation. By concentrating on CKOs, the study taps into a depth of expertise and experience that is critical for understanding the subtleties and complexities of KMPs in practice. This approach ensures that the research captures not only the theoretical underpinnings of KM, but also its practical application and evolution in the hands of those who lead and manage it.
3.3 Data collection and analysis tools
For this study, we engaged with 28 CKOs representing a diverse array of industry sectors, including technology companies, consulting firms, governmental entities, public institutions, banking establishments, healthcare providers, and more. The participants are engaged in a diverse array of organizational contexts, ranging from local to global markets and encompassing small, medium, and large-scale enterprises. This breadth of operational environments provides a comprehensive perspective on the application and impact of KMPs across various organizational sizes and scopes.
Gender distribution among participants was balanced, with 13 males (46.43%) and 15 females (53.57%). These participants boasted extensive experience in KM methodologies and technologies, with an average tenure of approximately 12 years in the field (SD = 5.35). The predominant age group fell within the bracket of 41–50 years old (n = 11, 39.28%), closely followed by the 31–40 age range (n = 10, 35.71%). Recruitment of participants was meticulously executed through purposeful sampling (Suri, 2011) and snowball sampling techniques (Parker et al., 2019), ensuring a diverse sample. The participant segmentation is detailed in Table 1.
Segmentation of the sample study
| Interviewer coding | Gender | Age group | Years of experience in KM | Organizational sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Man | ≤30 | 8 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P2 | Woman | 31–40 | 8 | Energy and Resources |
| P3 | Man | ≥51 | 15 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P4 | Woman | ≥51 | 23 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P5 | Woman | 41–50 | 17 | Banking and Finance |
| P6 | Man | 41–50 | 21 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P7 | Man | 41–50 | 19 | Energy and Resources |
| P8 | Man | 31–40 | 9 | Banking and Finance |
| P9 | Woman | 31–40 | 9 | Banking and Finance |
| P10 | Man | 41–50 | 20 | Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare |
| P11 | Woman | ≤30 | 5 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P12 | Woman | 41–50 | 12 | Public and Governmental |
| P13 | Man | 31–40 | 6 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P14 | Man | 41–50 | 12 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P15 | Woman | 41–50 | 18 | Banking and Finance |
| P16 | Man | 31–40 | 11 | Banking and Finance |
| P17 | Man | 41–50 | 17 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P18 | Woman | 31–40 | 10 | Energy and Resources |
| P19 | Man | ≤30 | 8 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P20 | Woman | 31–40 | 12 | Banking and Finance |
| P21 | Woman | 31–40 | 10 | Public and Governmental |
| P22 | Woman | 41–50 | 5 | Public and Governmental |
| P23 | Woman | ≥51 | 10 | Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare |
| P24 | Woman | 41–50 | 20 | Public and Governmental |
| P25 | Woman | 41–50 | 5 | Public and Governmental |
| P26 | Man | 31–40 | 12 | Public and Governmental |
| P27 | Woman | ≥51 | 6 | Banking and Finance |
| P28 | Man | 31–40 | 14 | Energy and Resources |
| Interviewer coding | Gender | Age group | Years of experience in KM | Organizational sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Man | ≤30 | 8 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P2 | Woman | 31–40 | 8 | Energy and Resources |
| P3 | Man | ≥51 | 15 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P4 | Woman | ≥51 | 23 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P5 | Woman | 41–50 | 17 | Banking and Finance |
| P6 | Man | 41–50 | 21 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P7 | Man | 41–50 | 19 | Energy and Resources |
| P8 | Man | 31–40 | 9 | Banking and Finance |
| P9 | Woman | 31–40 | 9 | Banking and Finance |
| P10 | Man | 41–50 | 20 | Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare |
| P11 | Woman | ≤30 | 5 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P12 | Woman | 41–50 | 12 | Public and Governmental |
| P13 | Man | 31–40 | 6 | Services and Consumer Goods |
| P14 | Man | 41–50 | 12 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P15 | Woman | 41–50 | 18 | Banking and Finance |
| P16 | Man | 31–40 | 11 | Banking and Finance |
| P17 | Man | 41–50 | 17 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P18 | Woman | 31–40 | 10 | Energy and Resources |
| P19 | Man | ≤30 | 8 | Technology, Media, and Communications |
| P20 | Woman | 31–40 | 12 | Banking and Finance |
| P21 | Woman | 31–40 | 10 | Public and Governmental |
| P22 | Woman | 41–50 | 5 | Public and Governmental |
| P23 | Woman | ≥51 | 10 | Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare |
| P24 | Woman | 41–50 | 20 | Public and Governmental |
| P25 | Woman | 41–50 | 5 | Public and Governmental |
| P26 | Man | 31–40 | 12 | Public and Governmental |
| P27 | Woman | ≥51 | 6 | Banking and Finance |
| P28 | Man | 31–40 | 14 | Energy and Resources |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Data collection was conducted through semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Among the questions we asked the participants were: (1) What do you consider to be part of KMPs? (2) How do you perceive the meaning of the KMPs in organizations and why? (3) In your opinion, what constitutes the correct application of these processes? (4) What are the risks associated with not implementing them properly? (5) Is there synergy between KMPs and other organizational or business processes? (6) What does this relationship signify, in your view, in the short and long term? This method facilitated an open and flexible exchange with participants, allowing for the exploration of their perspectives while maintaining a structured framework to address specific research inquiries and facilitate comparison across interviews. Participation in the study was voluntary, and each interview, ranging from one to one and a half hours, was audio-recorded with participants’ consent and subsequently transcribed for accuracy and thorough analysis. Data collection continued until a saturation point was reached, ensuring comprehensive coverage of participants’ insights.
Thematic analysis served as the methodological tool for data analysis, deemed particularly suitable for qualitative research aimed at understanding viewpoints, accumulated knowledge, or personal values from qualitative datasets (Baskarada, 2014). This approach enabled us to explore both explicit and implicit meanings within the collected data. Textual data were systematically coded using open and axial coding processes, allowing for the creation of meaningful categories grounded in the data and facilitating a comprehensive exploration of the CKOs’ perspectives on KMPs.
In this study, authentic evidence from participants is seamlessly integrated into the narrative. When deemed necessary, we have added explanatory notes enclosed within square brackets to clarify the context. This inclusion of authentic evidence enhances the credibility and richness of the study’s findings, providing direct insights from participants to substantiate the analysis.
4. Findings
The cases studied indicate that successful KM is predicated upon and dependent on orderly organizational processes for knowledge flow. Often, KMPs are defined as part of the formulation of a KM strategy, which is derived from the overall organizational strategy and is clearly aimed at achieving organizational objectives through the reuse and appropriate leveraging of knowledge. As part of this, the strategy document will precisely detail who the role holders integrated into each KMP are, their areas of responsibility, and at what stage they are involved. For this purpose, when mapping the existing business knowledge in professional departments, CKOs will attempt to ascertain “where each employee is positioned in the knowledge flow processes. That is, we strive to understand what knowledge they produce, what knowledge they consume, whether they document it, how, where, and when” (P26).
Although participants mentioned a wide range of KMPs, four popular processes especially stood out in the discourse. These are those mentioned in Section 2.3, namely: knowledge creation, documentation, sharing, and application. Therefore, these processes seem to be broadly acknowledged both in the academic literature and by practitioners in the field. A process that prominently emerged during the data analysis was the “consumption of explicit knowledge”. Although the term “knowledge consumption” requires some interpretation and clarification (see Section 5 for further details), its prominent citation during the interviews was closely linked to the critical importance that the CKOs in general attribute to processes like knowledge sharing and documentation within the organizational systems for the aim of future retrieval. Such practices are essential for ensuring that knowledge can be effectively applied in an organizational environment, i.e. “consumed” like an economic factor, thereby enhancing overall efficiency and productivity.
Specifically, throughout the examined cases, the consumption of knowledge was described as currently including two main possible approaches: (1) In the pull approach, employees actively seek and locate knowledge when they need it. They may do this, for example, through internal search engines or by navigating the knowledge tree in KMSs. Conversely, (2) in the push approach, advanced systems automatically identify the needs of employees based on artificial intelligence capabilities and provide them with personalized knowledge without the need for active action on their part, based on understanding patterns and profiles. This can be done through automatic alerts or updates in internal organizational platforms, relying on the identification of preferences and previous behaviors of the employee. Ultimately, these approaches support the flow of knowledge and constitute an integral part of the contemporary ecosystem that propels the organization forward.
In further detail, we discover that the deep meanings attributed by the CKOs to KMPs touch on three central intertwined aspects, as described in the following subsections.
4.1 Importance of integrating KMPs in work routines
Relying on “the integration of KM into ongoing work processes” (P24), there is a broad consensus among participants regarding the necessity of weaving it as an inseparable part of the organizational daily routine. As one interviewee, a CKO in the public sector with an M.A. in KM and 10 years of accumulated experience, declared: “CKOs need to be constantly oriented towards the professional work process itself and provide the supportive place through KM” (P21).
Furthermore, “the more superposition and overlap with organizational processes, the easier it will also be to embed KM” (P15). In other words, “the earlier this synergy between KM and business process management is executed, the deeper it will be ingrained in the organizational culture and yield results” (P1). The embedding will be achieved based on the assumption that in such a case, “KM becomes something that is clear to you [as an employee] that it is part of your day, it is part of your tasks … without putting too much emphasis on it” (P12).
In this context, we were given an example of full integration commonly conducted in call centers between KMSs and customer relationship management (CRM) systems. According to the cases studied, this functional integration allows service and support representatives to retrieve knowledge items relevant to the customer inquiry during the conversation with them and from the same technological access point, in a way that we understand is termed in business jargon as a “one-stop shop” or “single point of entry.” Namely, “the end users experience as if they are in one digital work environment. … They don’t feel at all that they are moving between systems” (P9). In a situation “where knowledge is supported in the context, then it’s clear that I will consume it! I don’t need to work hard for it” (P14).
We understand that according to the experience of the CKOs who participated in this study, the integration of KM into existing work processes is perceived as something that may lead the organization to actual growth and prosperity. In this regard, one of them, belonging to a large government office, described to us how in a business from the manufacturing industry, considered globally renowned and highly reputable, KM is perceived as such a vital strategic asset thanks to the construction of “KMPs that are very much embedded in the DNA of the organization. That’s what makes it the leader in its field, to be an international organization that meets super-high standards” (P22).
Another prominent example of the means to achieve excellence in KMPs was the orderly mechanism for handling feedback received from employees regarding the quality of knowledge items, as illustrated in the following authentic testimony:
Employees are invited, at the click of a button on a dedicated feature in the KMS, to report and alert any missing, incorrect, unclear, inaccurate, or outdated content, without the need for any transition to another system. An automatic alert is sent to the knowledge experts in the organization, and knowledge items with such content are edited and optimized as required (P5).
These knowledge experts are employees with extensive expertise and experience in the specific domain related to the knowledge item, ensuring that the feedback received is addressed accurately and effectively. At the end of the treatment, the employee who provided the feedback on the issue will automatically receive an indication that their feedback has led to proper handling. According to CKOs, this mechanism, which is applicable across various business sectors, supports the efficient, accurate, and relevant documentation of knowledge, ensuring that the organization’s knowledge base remains up-to-date and reliable.
4.2 Risks of an artificial separation between KMPs and organizational processes
CKOs define various KMPs, along with KM tools and methods, to help employees manage their knowledge. However, when these KMPs are too disconnected from the employees’ work or business needs, they become problematic. The informants believe that in such scenarios, where KM is not well-integrated into work processes, there is a risk that employees will experience significant frustration and a sense of burden due to the substantial effort required from them for knowledge flow. This could lead to the abandonment of appropriate KM tools and methods. As noted by a CKO working in a technology company: “If they feel that the processes make it difficult for them, so they have to work hard for [!] KM – we will lose them. No one will spend time on it” (P11). Thus, the issue is closely linked to failure in change management, as indicated: “If you don’t directly link KM to the work process, it will be difficult to achieve a high level of its implementation” (P18). This claim was also explained as follows:
If it [KM] is not woven into the systems I’m already [!] working with, meaning, I need to access a new, additional, separate system, not integrated with other systems – in the past maybe it worked. Today people expect to get everything in one place! … You need to find those places where you connect KM to the business process and to existing systems, as much as possible (P14).
Furthermore, the cases studied show that merely placing KM in isolation from core processes can not only undermine employee senes and make it difficult for them to ensure the integrity of knowledge flow but also raise questions among management about the very worthiness of the investment. This was clarified as follows:
Our goal [as CKOs] should be to have KM rooted perfectly and without reservation in work processes. That is, it should not be apparent that “now we are doing a KMP here.” In such a reality, that KM is simply separated from the business processes, complex management questions arise, such as “Is it worth investing at all?” or “Does this investment yield a substantial return commensurate with its associated efforts?” (P27).
4.3 Future outlook: “transparent KM” as an integral part of organization
A thorough analysis of the results has shed new light on the perspective that seeks to interweave KMPs with the existing organizational procedures:
KM should be a natural part! It's just obvious that this is exactly how we do our work … . I don't want an employee to say “I'm doing KM,” but rather to say: “I'm using the existing knowledge hub. I share with my colleagues when there is something new. I'm doing my work!”. … I want that eventually the KM will be “transparent” to our employees. That is, it will be a natural part of their work tasks, and they won't even notice that they are doing it [actively managing knowledge]. I would prefer that they don't spend the entire day exclaiming in astonishment and saying “Wow, how much better it's for me now that I'm doing KM.” No!! It should just be more comfortable and efficient for them. Then, maybe they will stop for a moment and say “Well, before we had [tools and methods for] KM, it was more complicated.” But in their workflow, it will simply be natural. KM is not something they will experience at every moment as “KM” (P21).
When we asked to delve deeper into this perspective, that interviewee further clarified the ideal state, in light of achieving high organizational maturity in KM:
In an ideal world, it’s [KM] even something you don’t notice. Just as we don't notice that we are breathing while doing so. It just happens! So that’s how we work. It’s really obvious that when I work, I save the document in the KMS, organizes and tagging it. It’s clear that when I have something new, I share it with others. It’s clear that I use this knowledge to achieve organizational goals. And it’s also clear that I have a platform to share my insights and expertise. It's so obvious! That's how we should all work in our day-to-day, right? [posed as a rhetorical question] (P21).
A metaphor akin to the visionary future of successful integration of KM into organizational work processes was received from CKO of a successful international consulting firm in this field:
The beauty lies in the fact that if KM functions properly, it becomes imperceptible … It’s similar to not questioning daily how water reaches one’s faucet. It simply works! KM seamlessly facilitates all the routine activities within an organization, aligning with its business objectives and providing ongoing support. For the end-user, KM should be “transparent”—if they have a question, they enter the KMS and find the desired answer (P6).
This perspective regarding the ideal state of KM was supported by others. For instance, CKO from a large financial corporation described the future of the discipline as he envisions it:
Ultimately, KM will become a foundational infrastructure within organizations. Just as human resources (HR) are a foundation. Just as logistical supply is a foundation. That’s how I see it. Good KM isn’t something that constantly needs attention. It’s something that already operates independently as a mechanism. And I wouldn’t even notice its existence … Managers don’t want to focus employees on the activity of KM itself as an object, but rather on their work. That is, I won’t come and tell an employee, “You’ve contributed four knowledge items to the KMS.” It shouldn’t occupy their attention! They need to know how to do their job as best as possible … KM is the supporter of this (P16).
5. Discussion
The findings of this study enrich the discourse on KM implementation by elucidating three interconnected dimensions: the criticality of KMPs integration within daily work routines, the hazards associated with its artificial segregation, and the paradoxical vision of “transparent” KM.
Throughout the data collection process, CKOs frequently highlighted four key KMPs: knowledge creation, documentation, sharing, and application. These processes are not only widely recognized in existing literature (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Edwards, 2015; Gao et al., 2018; Kassaneh et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2005; Paulin and Suneson, 2012; Scarso and Bolisani, 2023), but also highly valued among practitioners. The consistent emphasis on these processes by CKOs underscores their fundamental role in effective KM. Moreover, the dual approaches of knowledge consumption—pull and push—further illustrate the adaptive strategies organizations employ to ensure timely and relevant knowledge dissemination (Azeem et al., 2021; Kaba and Ramaiah, 2020; Olan et al., 2022). The pull approach allows individuals to seek out and retrieve knowledge as needed, fostering a culture of proactive learning. Conversely, the push approach involves the distribution of knowledge to individuals, based on advanced technologies, ensuring that critical knowledge reaches the right employee at the right time. Together, these strategies enable organizations to remain agile and responsive in a rapidly changing environment.
The consensus among CKOs underscores the imperative of embedding KM into the fabric of everyday organizational activities. This study’s insights resonate with and expand upon existing scholarship (Dalkir, 2017; Handzic, 2017; Jashapara, 2011), positing that the extent of congruence and intertwinement between KMPs and business processes is pivotal to KM efficacy. The CKOs’ perspectives suggest that the degree of “superposition and overlap” between KM and business processes directly influences de-facto the success of KM. Such integration transcends convenience, emerging as a strategic necessity that merits consideration for inclusion in the organizational knowledge strategy (Bratianu, 2022). This notion is reflective of the resource-based view, which advocates that strategically managed knowledge assets can engender a durable competitive edge (Grant, 1996). Furthermore, it expands the concept of “ba” in knowledge creation theory (Nonaka and Konno, 1998) by envisioning the entire organization as a dynamic “ba” where knowledge flows and grows naturally within the rhythm of everyday work.
The role of technology as a facilitator of this integration is also accentuated, with the harmonious fusion of KMSs and CRM systems in call centers serving as a prime example of how technological convergence can streamline knowledge accessibility without imposing additional burdens on employees. This aligns with the socio-technical perspective of KM, which emphasizes the symbiotic interplay between people, processes, and technology (Al Mansoori et al., 2021; Dalkir, 2017; Edwards, 2015; Handzic, 2017).
CKOs caution against the perils of KM’s isolation from core business processes. They articulate that such detachment can precipitate not only employee disenchantment and the subsequent abandonment of KM tools and methods, but also engender managerial doubts regarding the intrinsic value of KM. This observation intimates that the seamless amalgamation of KM into core work processes not only augments knowledge circulation but also substantiates the rationale for KM investments. This revelation contributes to the ongoing debate within KM literature concerning the quantification of KM’s advantages (Ragab and Arisha, 2013; Massingham and Massingham, 2014; Nakash and Bouhnik, 2021). Furthermore, the CKOs’ remarks about the modern workforce’s predilection for consolidated, singular platforms over disparate systems for KM activities underscore the evolving expectations within the digital workspace. This is congruent with contemporary research spotlighting the significance of cohesive, user-centric systems (Kane, 2019; Newell, 2015).
The study’s most forward-looking revelation pertains to the concept of “transparent KM,” wherein KM is envisaged as an integral component of the organizational infrastructure. This perspective transcends mere integration, aspiring to a paradigm where KM evolves into a set of almost instinctive processes, to the point of becoming an integral part of one’s work. This does not imply that these processes should not be learned, trained, or updated; rather, they should not be treated in isolation from the context in which they are applied. Envisioning KM as such an infrastructural element in organizations signifies a paradigmatic shift in the conceptualization of KM, advocating a transition from viewing KM as a collection of distinct and isolated tasks to perceiving it as an intrinsic aspect of operational execution. This aligns with scholarly calls for a more holistic, systemic approach to KM (Nakash et al., 2023; Shujahat et al., 2017). Additionally, the CKOs’ focus on diverting employees’ attention away from KMPs and toward the outcomes of their work resonates with intrinsic motivation theories in knowledge-intensive occupations (Newell et al., 2009; Osterloh and Frey, 2000). It implies that when KM is “transparent,” employees are empowered to concentrate on their primary responsibilities, rather than being externally driven by KM-related metrics.
6. Conclusions
The insights gleaned from this study underscore a pivotal shift in the conceptualization of KM. The CKOs articulate a future vision where KM transcends its current state as a separate set of activities to become an intrinsic, almost invisible component of the organizational fabric. This vision challenges the traditional view of KM as a standalone discipline (Dalkir, 2017), reimagining it as a ubiquitous force that seamlessly enhances organizational processes without demanding a separate attention.
This paradigm shift has profound implications for both theory and practice. Theoretically, it extends the discourse on KM integration beyond mere operational alignment to a state of “transparency.” This concept of “transparent KM” contributes to the evolving understanding of KM’s role within organizational theory. It resonates with and builds upon established frameworks like the resource-based view (Grant, 1996) and knowledge creation theory (Nonaka and Konno, 1998) by suggesting that the ultimate value of knowledge assets lies not in their isolated management, but in their seamless integration into work processes.
Moreover, this vision aligns with emerging theories on digital work environments (Kane, 2019) and the socio-technical perspective of KM (Edwards, 2015). It suggests that as technology becomes more advanced and user-centric, the boundaries between KMSs and other work systems should dissolve, creating a unified digital ecosystem that intuitively supports knowledge flow. This has implications for how we conceptualize and study the interplay between people, processes, and technology in knowledge-intensive organizations.
For practitioners, the implications are equally significant. KM professionals are challenged to move beyond designing standalone KM initiatives to co-creating work processes where KM is inherently embedded. This requires a deep understanding of work routines, user behaviors, and organizational culture. It also demands closer collaboration with other functions like information technologies (IT), HR, and process management to ensure that KM is woven into the very DNA of organizational processes.
Organizational leaders, particularly, are called to view KM not as a support function but as a core infrastructure, akin to finance or operations. This perspective shift could redefine how KM investments are evaluated. Rather than assessing KM’s Return on Investment (ROI) in isolation, leaders should consider how integrated KM enhances overall organizational performance, innovation, and adaptability. This holistic view of KM’s value aligns with recent calls in the literature for more nuanced approaches to measuring KM outcomes (Massingham and Massingham, 2014; Nakash and Bouhnik, 2021; Ragab and Arisha, 2013).
The study also has implications for the design of knowledge work. By suggesting that KM should not be a constant focus for employees, it resonates with theories of intrinsic motivation in knowledge work (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010). When KM is “transparent,” employees can focus on their core tasks and intrinsic motivations, potentially leading to higher engagement and creativity. In this scenario, KM capabilities just become part of their background and professional repertoire. This insight could guide the design of knowledge-intensive roles and performance management systems.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge the study’s limitations. As a qualitative inquiry based on 28 CKO interviews and the case study methodology, the findings, while rich and insightful, may not be universally generalizable. The perspectives of CKOs, while valuable, represent only one stakeholder group in the KM ecosystem. Future research could broaden this perspective by incorporating views of knowledge workers, IT professionals, and organizational leaders across various sectors and geographies. Future research could also benefit from adopting a quantitative-positivist paradigm to enrich the results, thereby enhancing the generalizability.
Moreover, while the vision of “transparent KM” is compelling, its realization poses significant challenges. Future studies could explore these challenges empirically. Key questions include: How can organizations measure progress towards “transparent KM”? What are the technological, cultural, and structural barriers to achieving this state? How does the journey towards “transparent KM” differ across industries and organizational sizes? Additionally, longitudinal studies could provide valuable insights. By tracking organizations as they strive to integrate KM more deeply, researchers could identify critical success factors, potential pitfalls, and stages of maturity. Such studies could also explore how the shift towards “transparent KM” impacts long-term outcomes like organizational learning, innovation capacity, and adaptability to change. In the pursuit of “transparent KM,” we chart a course towards an organizational renaissance, where knowledge is not just managed but woven into the very sinews of our corporate entities, promising a future where adaptability and learning are the cornerstones of success.
