Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Analysing-Knowledge-Requirements--A-Cas 👈

1. Analysing knowledge
requirements:
a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and
A.S.A. du Toit
The authors
D.B. Schwikkard is a Freelance Consultant, Schwikkard
Consulting, Randburg, South Africa.
A.S.A. du Toit is a Professor, Department of Information Studies,
RAU University, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Keywords
Knowledge management, South Africa, Service industries
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of a knowledge audit conducted
to determine the knowledge requirements of a large service-
based enterprise in South Africa. The objective of the knowledge
audit was to identify and describe the current and future
knowledge requirements of the enterprise. The results indicated
that employees have some basic knowledge and information
needs that must be satisfied before any further investigations
take place. Once the fundamental building blocks of knowledge
content are established, it is recommended that more
sophisticated solutions can be developed. Broad
recommendations for establishing a knowledge management
strategy that will be a source of sustainable competitive
advantage are proposed.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0001-253X.htm
Introduction
The shift to knowledge as the centre of wealth
production has made senior leadership of most large
enterprises aware that they must develop better
techniques to manage this vital asset. Gartner Group
(2000a) supports this view with its forecast that, by
2005, 75 per cent of global enterprises will require
significant transformation of governance, human
resources, workplace policies and workforce planning
in order to establish an effective strategy for managing
knowledge. In order to succeed, such transformation
initiatives require senior leadership support as well as
adequate commitment of resources to sustain and
direct activities, thereby ensuring alignment with the
enterprise’s vision, strategy, and business objectives.
This paper presents the findings of a knowledge
audit conducted for a large service-based enterprise
in Southern Africa. The knowledge audit forms the
basis for the initial investigations into defining an
enterprise-wide knowledge management strategy and
identifying relevant solutions to the enterprise’s
workforce.
Business information is often seen as a hierarchy
ascending from data to information to knowledge.
For the purpose of this paper, data will be regarded as
text, images and numbers in their undigested form,
while information are data that has been processed
and presented in such a way as to be relevant in a
decision-making situation. Knowledge may be seen
as the network of rules that enables people to use their
know-how and their know-what to give structure and
meaning to data and information (Kok, 1999, p. 9).
Explicit knowledge is articulated knowledge –
knowledge that has been formalized by the way of
speech, text, visual graphics and the data we compile.
Tacit knowledge includes the intuition, perspectives,
beliefs and values that people form as a result of their
experience (Doyle and Du Toit, 1998, p. 4).
The enterprise in question consists of a number
of separate entities, which have been gradually
acquired over the past 4 years. The head-office of
the enterprise is in Johannesburg, South Africa,
with branches in Australia and the UK. Each entity
offers a specialized product or service, which the
senior leadership considered to be a valuable
enhancement to the overall core competencies of
the business. The company has a R3 billion annual
turnover and is made up of about 890 employees.
The main focus of the business is to target the
enterprise resource planning (ERP) activities within
its client base with a view to offer specialist
outsourcing capabilities. These capabilities range
from operational services to strategic consulting and
implementation.
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp. 104-111
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0001-253X
DOI 10.1108/00012530410529477
Received: 20 September 2003
Revised: 30 October 2003
Accepted: 15 November 2003
104

2. One of the main concerns confronting the business
at present is the lack of proper integration between
each of the different entities. Each entity has
developed its own processes, technology solutions
and organization culture. As a result, there are
numerous conflicts between these entities, which
inhibit knowledge sharing and have resulted in less
than efficient performance across the enterprise. The
potential synergies that were envisioned from the
merging of the various entities are not being realized
and the enterprise urgently needs to identify a
solution to enhance a common understanding of the
mission and objectives across the group. This is
essential if the enterprise is successfully to package
the various service offerings when going to market.
The knowledge audit constitutes a valuable
component of the overarching knowledge
management framework that has been developed for
the enterprise. The benefit of developing a
framework, according to Robertson (2002) is that it
“builds an approach to knowledge management that
is specifically tailored to the organisation’s
environment, processes and goals”. The actual audit
is aimed at what Eisenhart (2001) refers to as
“harvesting” or gathering the knowledge that is
required across the enterprise so that it is readily
available to all employees who need it. The audit itself
consists of a process of identifying the knowledge that
leadership considers to be critical to the success of the
business and then studying the target audience to
ensure that any gaps or overlaps in knowledge types
have been identified. The resulting analysis provides
an initial basis for populating the proposed
knowledge management solution with relevant
content.
Knowledge audit
An Internet search conducted in the year 2000 on the
topic of knowledge management produced more than
37,900 Web pages and 266 book titles
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2000). Excluded from
this total were the many conferences, journals and
associations that have dedicated valuable resources to
investigating knowledge management. Despite the
plethora of content on this topic, anyone trying to
implement knowledge management will find very
little on the actual methodologies that might be used
to form the basis for instruction in this regard. One of
the fundamental requirements for a successful
knowledge management initiative is that it maintains
a consistent and a clear focus based on the company
strategies and business drivers. Unfortunately, many
initiatives are not afforded this luxury. As Capshaw
(1999) observes, “[o]ften the directive to do
something in support of KM is given, but there is no
direction”. This is a common complaint made by
those who have been instructed to launch a
knowledge management program. Gartner Group
(2000a) observes that the majority of inquiries
directed to its knowledge management practice are
product-related. For example, the client may be
deciding whether to acquire a system for document
management, data warehousing, information search
and retrieval, or an integrated suite of such products.
However, prior to embarking on this exercise, the
client has not implemented internal processes for the
management of intellectual assets. Gartner Group
argues “this situation of looking for KM products
without first having established an operational
foundation and process for management of
intellectual assets is an invitation to failure”.
A search of public domain literature will find
frequent mention of the requirement for what is
cryptically referred to as a “knowledge audit” at the
launch of any knowledge management initiative.
However, upon closer inspection, very little of the
literature investigates the topic beyond the most
superficial discussion of what such an audit might
entail. Robertson (2002) observes that “many
different ‘knowledge management frameworks’ have
been produced [however] only a few of these have
reached prominence and a broad audience”.
Researchers on the topic will frequently encounter
references to reputable consulting enterprises that
own proprietary knowledge audit methodologies
(Allweyer, 1997). Such methodologies are not
publicly available but can be acquired for a fee,
should one wish to implement knowledge
management within an enterprise. This may not
always be an economically viable option for an
enterprise, nor does it provide any opportunities for
the client to compare the suitability of each
technique. Despite the lack of published accounts
that precisely detail how to execute a standard
knowledge management audit methodology, it is
possible to extract sufficient insight from existing
literature to develop a basis for the creation of a
customized knowledge management methodology for
a specific enterprise. This approach is compatible
with that offered by Kirrane (1999, p. 3) who asserts
that:
No template exists for making knowledge
management easy, because it ultimately requires
complex interrelated changes in organizational
culture and systems. However, by investigating
knowledge management more deeply – perhaps
with a knowledge management team – you’ll be
able to choose which characteristics best fit your
[enterprise].
Gartner Group (2000b) advises that, in order to
minimize the risk of failure, as well as align knowledge
management to the strategic direction of the
enterprise and to define the requirements for
knowledge management technology support, the
knowledge management team should adhere to some
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
105

3. basic principles. Most importantly, the knowledge
management initiative must be based on knowledge
strategies that directly support business objectives.
The initiative must be measured by its effect on those
objectives if it intends to demonstrate a positive
return on investment. For instance, knowledge
management strategies might be aimed at improving
the customer retention or the win rate for client
projects. With each of these examples, the underlying
processes that enable the achievement of these goals
will need to be examined and enhanced to ensure that
knowledge processes exist that facilitate improved
performance.
According to Robertson (2002) there are many
benefits in applying a knowledge management
framework or methodology. Gartner Group (2000c)
contends, for example, that a “knowledge audit”
needs to be undertaken during the initial stages of the
knowledge management program. They state:
The audit should identify the knowledge
requirements of all processes that are heavily
dependent on intellectual assets and that underlie
the targeted business objectives. The audit also
identifies knowledge sources that can fulfil these
knowledge requirements and the high-level
business process steps where that knowledge must
be applied (Gartner Group, 2000c).
By identifying a suitable framework for a knowledge
management initiative, Robertson (2002) argues that
it is possible to build credibility and provide an
appropriate context for meaningful dialogue with
leadership. In his view: “[t]his framework builds an
approach to knowledge management that is
specifically tailored to the organization’s
environment, processes and goals”.
Liebowitz et al. (1999) define a knowledge audit as
a tool that:
[. . .] assesses potential stores of knowledge. It is the
first part of any knowledge management strategy.
By discovering what knowledge is possessed, it is
then possible to find the most effective method of
storage and dissemination. It can then be used as
the basis for evaluating the extent to which change
needs to be introduced to the enterprise. Part of the
knowledge audit is capturing “tacit” knowledge.
Stevens (2000) correctly asserts that:
[t]he precise meaning of the term “knowledge
audit” is subject to discussion. Whatever the
specifics, though, a complete knowledge audit
must evaluate, in ascending order of difficulty, the
state of the company’s technology, how well its
processes support knowledge sharing, and the work
styles and culture of its people.
Capshaw (1999) believes that a knowledge audit
should provide the following outputs:
.
an assessment of current levels of knowledge
usage and interchange;
.
knowledge management propensity within the
enterprise;
.
identification and analysis of knowledge
management opportunities;
.
isolation of potential problem areas; and
.
an evaluation of the perceived value in
knowledge within the enterprise.
Liebowitz et al. (1999) cite Dataware as one of the
leaders in the knowledge management field.
Dataware maintain that, to achieve effective results, a
knowledge audit need only focus on solving one
question, namely: “In order to solve the targeted
problem, what knowledge do I have, what knowledge
is missing, who needs this knowledge and how will
they use the knowledge?”
By following the above approach it is possible not
only to identify what knowledge already exists but
also what knowledge gaps there are. In other words,
the audit will establish what knowledge exists as well
as what knowledge needs to be created, structured
and made accessible at this particular point in time
within the enterprise. Although it is necessary to
identify key knowledge content requirements,
Allweyer (1997) correctly observes that an
“important prerequisite for a successful knowledge
management project is the description of the
underlying business processes”. A successful
knowledge management initiative must focus on
knowledge-enabling business processes. Seeley
(2002, p. 12) supports Allweyer’s view, saying that:
Knowledge is created, exchanged, applied, refined
and captured through the work that’s naturally
done by knowledge workers. The sequence of work
activities and decisions to convert inputs to
organizationally valued outputs is commonly
referred to as a business process.
Gartner Group (2000c) refers to this as the
development of “Process K-maps”. According to
Gartner Group, process K-maps depict high-level
processes and the knowledge sources that the
knowledge management initiative must maintain to
support key business processes. Business process
modelling aims to increase productivity and reduce
costs by reviewing and analysing the existing process
structures.
In order to devise comprehensive methodologies
for knowledge management, the tasks and content
pertaining to the processing and managing of
knowledge must be analysed, thereby facilitating the
development of a framework for knowledge
management. The knowledge audit process is
instrumental in defining a knowledge management
strategy and framework for the enterprise. It is
essential to establish a business case for knowledge
management as well as a clear understanding of the
enterprise culture as part of the knowledge audit.
Although this paper briefly gives an account of both
of these aspects, it is the third element that receives
the most attention, this being the process of
identifying key knowledge and information assets
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
106

4. required by the enterprise in order to enhance specific
business processes.
Framework for the knowledge audit
The knowledge audit constitutes a valuable
component of the overarching knowledge
management framework that has been developed for
the enterprise. The objective of the knowledge audit
was to identify and describe the current and future
knowledge requirements of the enterprise and, on the
basis of this, to clarify the knowledge management
strategy of the enterprise. According to Becerra-
Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) an enterprise can
be perceived as a knowledge-integrating entity that
facilitates the fusion of knowledge created by
individuals and teams during the production of
products and services. The authors identify three
ways in which knowledge integration occurs as being:
organizational routines, direction, or processes
involving the sharing of implicit or explicit
knowledge.
Whilst explicit knowledge can be distributed
through a variety of media, the same cannot be said
for tacit knowledge, which depends heavily on the
creation of shared understanding between
individuals. The conversion of tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge usually leads to a dilution in the
richness of the knowledge exchange. Becerra-
Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) make reference to
the work done by Nonaka, who identified four
possible means by which knowledge is shared through
the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge.
The modes are identified as follows:
(1) Socialization, which involves the sharing of
knowledge between individuals through
activities, rather than written or verbal
instruction.
(2) Externalization, which requires that tacit
knowledge to be expressed in comprehensible
forms that are easier to understand.
(3) Internalization, which is a process whereby the
individual identifies knowledge from the external
environment that is personally relevant and
converts such explicit knowledge into a personal
context for interpreting the environment.
(4) Combination, which requires that existing
explicit knowledge be enhanced and
accumulated to create even more complex
explicit knowledge for use within the enterprise.
It cannot be ignored that the enterprise in question
lacks a formal initiative focused on the socialization
and internalization of knowledge. Such a function is
an essential component of any knowledge-based
business as it facilitates on skills transfer and shared
competency activities and can provide a platform for
communicating shared values and beliefs across the
enterprise. In this instance, the authors were also able
to identify that the level of externalization within the
enterprise was extremely limited, despite the fact that
it has a significant influence over perceived
knowledge satisfaction. This provided an area where
improvements could be made.
Methodology
It was decided to follow the Grounded Theory
approach to collect information on the knowledge
requirements of the enterprise. Grounded Theory is
more interested in theory building than theory
testing, which makes it eminently suitable for areas of
research that have had little attention and exploration
(Yin, 1993, p.61). Grounded Theory specifically calls
for the evaluation of “cases”.
Some of the advantages of using Grounded
Theory for research of this nature are as follows
(Bajaj, 1998, p. 11):
.
Grounded Theory can be used where no general
theory about the phenomenon (knowledge
audit) exists.
.
Grounded Theory produces concepts which can
be related to the phenomenon and which in fact
“intimately” describes the phenomenon being
studied. The advantages of this is that a number
of concepts can be identified and a clearer view
be obtained of the factors which determine the
knowledge requirements of the enterprise.
.
The participants in the research themselves
generate the factors, which places the
responsibility of analysis on the researchers.
Standard empirical studies rely on earlier
research and theory and these concepts are then
“imposed” onto the respondents, actively
influencing their ability to respond objectively.
The knowledge audit was aimed primarily at
identifying the knowledge that practitioners strongly
perceived as being of increased value once
externalized. In order to establish the knowledge
management requirements of the enterprise, two
types of interviews were undertaken:
(1) Five interviews were conducted with Business
Unit Leaders in order to obtain a strategic
perspective on the knowledge management
requirements of the enterprise.
(2) Three workshops were held with representatives
of the various business divisions, in order to
understand the operational requirements of each
entity.
Resulting from this process, a specification was drawn
up describing the priority knowledge management
requirements of the enterprise. This specification was
then assessed against key components of the
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
107

5. enterprise’s information technology infrastructure,
and gap areas identified. On the basis of these gaps,
an integrated solution was proposed, and the content
to be delivered by this solution was defined. The
functional requirements, architecture and operation
of an integrated solution were discussed.
The enterprise’s knowledge management
needs
Once the interviews were completed, the researchers
were able to identify the patterns and areas of
divergence amongst the respondents. This was
achieved by transferring portions of individual
transcripts from leadership interviews into a shared
spreadsheet under specific headings as identified
during the process of analysis. Once this was done,
the researchers were able to find areas of
commonality as well as possible solutions and
innovations, which might benefit the initiative.
Following from this analysis, the researchers were
able to present a set of content types to the workshop
audience who were then able to provide a more
detailed assessment of the gaps and requirements
they had from an operational perspective. The
findings of both these interactions are presented
below. In the first section, using a process that relied
on Grounded Theory, key findings derived from the
business unit leader interviews are presented; in the
second section, the detailed requirements of the
practitioners are enumerated.
Strategic positioning
In this section, the enterprise’s senior leadership
identify the strategic requirements for a knowledge
management framework:
Commitment to knowledge management is
overwhelmingly positive, however consensus varies
regarding a suitable solution.
Although senior leadership agreed that knowledge
management is a strategic imperative for the
enterprise, certain respondents were opposed to the
idea of using a technology solution as a means of
remedying current concerns. However, the majority
held the view that this was a first step in the direction
towards creating a common forum for sharing
knowledge and facilitating innovation. A technology
platform was not viewed as the final mechanism for
implementing a knowledge management solution
within the enterprise, but as a means of making visible
and integrating the common processes and work
activities that drive the success of the enterprise.
In order to realize any significant benefit from
implementing a solution, leadership must ensure
that tools are integrated into workflow activities.
Given the wide range of competencies and
capabilities across the enterprise, any solution must
enable a range of workflow processes, ranging from
the low-end commodity-based transactional tasks
performed by the operationally focused service lines
to the high-end analytical requirements of the
strategic consulting divisions. Within this context,
priority should be given to those activities that serve
to create a differential for the enterprise in that they
position its products and services at the cutting edge
of new market trends and developments. This
strategy will ensure that the enterprise is selected for
client projects and engagements that only they have
the competencies to tender for. The capabilities of the
more commoditized entities should attempt to
leverage off the more specialized knowledge
management tools and content, in order to ensure
that there is a regular and relevant exchange of
business intelligence between those working at the
coalface and their colleagues who are developing
innovative solutions to take to market. Leadership
was inclined toward measuring usage of the
knowledge management system as an initial step in
the process of evaluating the success of the proposed
solution. Thereafter more tangible measures would
need to be developed, such as the number of new
leads and business opportunities which might have
resulted from deploying the solution.
Operational positioning
The interviews with senior leadership provided
sufficient indicators of existing deficiencies within the
enterprise to serve as a basis for further investigations.
Leadership expressed concern regarding the
effectiveness of the existing core processes that served
to generate revenue for the enterprise. These
processes focused primarily on client-facing activities
and were already displaying symptoms of poor
knowledge management. For example, the business
was losing market share as a result of not being able to
sustain a level of uniqueness and innovation in order
to be considered to be supplier of choice. Individual
entities within the group were bidding for the same
projects without informing one another and staff
morale was declining as a result of the squeeze on
margins and pressure to perform at an ever-increasing
pace without generating greater returns due to
increased competition in the marketplace.
These concerns were raised within the workshops
and attendees were asked what, if any, solutions they
might be able to identify in order to enhance
performance and implement a culture of constant
innovation and improvement. The attendees were
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
108

6. invited to apply the “enterprise resource planning”
(ERP) model as a basis for their understanding of
how this might affect a knowledge-based business
such as their own. The context which was created
allowed for respondents to apply the principles of
supply and demand within the context of knowledge
content, bearing in mind that such content, unlike a
commodity, does not decrease but invariably
increases with use and thus needs to be controlled
and managed differently.
Once the feedback from the workshops had been
analysed, it became obvious that there were content
needs that were common across all the divisions. The
specific content required by employees is identified
below, along with a brief description of the
requirement. The knowledge requirements are
clustered into three main “topics”, as follows:
(1) Knowledge about internal expertise and client-
focused capabilities across the enterprise.
(2) Knowledge about past projects and new business
opportunities across the enterprise including
contact relationship management.
(3) Knowledge of and access to third party technical
research and cutting edge ideas relevant to
practitioners across the enterprise.
Based on the above mentioned key knowledge areas,
the workshop attendees were asked to identify and
prioritise specific content within each of the above
contexts according to its importance in terms of
enabling them to add value to their output and
enhance their decision-making capabilities.
Enterprise expertise and capabilities
The content listed in Table I was identified during the
workshops as being of value to employees across the
enterprise as a means of locating expertise and
understanding the nature of the various service
offerings across the enterprise in order to channel
new business opportunities effectively. The following
content was identified as being relevant for the
development of a skills and capabilities directory
(Table I).
Contact relationship management
The intention of this component would be to allow
for a range of definitions with regards to business
relationships established with the enterprise. By
establishing the nature of the business relationship,
the system allows the users to distinguish between
customers, targets, suppliers, business partners,
competitors or any other value that might need to be
attributed to the relationship. The contact
relationship management component is an essential
part of the overall solution as it ensures that any
interactions are managed effectively in order to avoid
duplication of efforts and to ensure that the
relationship is not damaged as a result of inconsistent
communication between each party (Table II).
Technical collection and learning
resources
In addition to the content required by the enterprise
to ensure that its ongoing interactions with its clients
and contacts are managed effectively and that its
employees are appropriately deployed, leadership has
identified a third critical aspect to the content
requirements for the enterprise. This component
serves as a catalyst for enterprise innovation and
developing cutting edge market offerings within a
knowledge-based business. Alternately, this content
is required as a risk management or professional
advisory tool in order to ensure that public policy and
Table I Knowledge requirements: enterprise expertise and capabilities
Content type Details Priority
Capability or solution: descriptive details Established terminology used to describe capability
or service offering
High
Client service contact Contact details of key individuals Medium
Qualifications and credentials Past engagements and projects pertaining to
the capability
High
Capability custodian Contact details of custodian/s High
Expert overview Brief assessment of issues and challenges
currently facing providers
Medium
Individual contact details Expert’s name, position, regional location, phone
number and e-mail address
High
Expert’s current work experience Expert’s involvement in previous projects Medium
Expert’s core expertise and competencies Inventory of skills that expert has
acquired
High
Expert’s previous employment history Enterprises with whom expert was previously
employed
Low
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
109

7. statutory requirements are adhered to when advising
clients and interacting with contacts. Such content is
derived both internally and externally and needs to be
identified formally by subject experts and managed in
conjunction with custodians who have been made
responsible for distribution across the enterprise or
directly to specific users (Table III).
Recommendations
The grounded research methodology used during this
project provided the researchers with valuable
analysis of the enterprise’s knowledge requirements.
Based on an assessment of the interviews, which were
conducted with senior leadership, as well as the
workshops conducted with selected management
staff, the following key issues have been identified.
Whilst the majority of those interviewed were positive
about the impact a content management initiative
would have on the enterprise, this was not necessarily
the view held by all stakeholders. In particular, those
who represented the interests of the more high-end,
value-added services were eager to embark on
activities that cultivated greater opportunities for
team innovation and creativity. Such activities usually
take place in a real-time environment and benefit
from close interpersonal communication where trust
and co-operation are well entrenched. This type of
culture cannot be cultivated via the anonymity of a
technology platform, but needs to be driven by the
support and encouragement of leadership and
through the allocation of resources to promote certain
values and activities. Technology serves here as an
enabler for collaboration and a collective memory
store. The critical success factor lies in the team
dynamics.
Given the recent restructuring of the enterprise,
significant concerns exist regarding the cost of
launching a knowledge management initiative. In
particular, there is some reluctance around the costs
that might be incurred in acquiring new technologies.
Given that prevailing opinion indicates that the
knowledge management technology requirements
currently cannot be satisfied by the existing solutions,
the researchers recommend a more cautious, organic
approach to any proposed technology
implementation. It is important to note that the
enterprise already has a highly skilled development
team who are well versed in the specification and
selection of suitable technology solutions for clients.
With this in mind, it might be advisable to assess the
current enterprise infrastructure in order to
understand what opportunities exist to leverage off it,
until a more viable long-term solution can be
Table II Knowledge requirements: contact relationship management
Content type Details Priority
Contact details for entity Name and contact details, Web sites
and logo/s, black empowerment status
High
Synopsis of company and its business
status
Entity’s business activities, industry focus and
insights
High
Relationship history Current status and history of relationship
with enterprise divisions
Medium
Business profile Links to relevant external business information
via third party vendors
Medium
Contact people within entity Names, contact details and roles of
key individuals in company
High
Activity tracking details Descriptions of significant interactions with contact
personnel
High
Opportunity team members Names and responsibilities of team members Medium
Opportunity management Opportunity type, unique identifier, initial contact
person, nature and scope of opportunity
High
Solution techniques Detailed project plan and relevant methodologies High
Insights gained Any key learning derived from project Medium
Catalogue of key project deliverables Inventory of key project documentation High
Table III Knowledge requirements: technical collection and learning resources
Content type Details Priority
Library of electronic sources Collection of all electronic
public domain third party
content currently subscribed to
by the enterprise
High
Industry directories Internally developed directories of
relevant industry content available
via the intranet
High
Competitor Web sites and
analysis
Links to competitor Web
sites and any electronic
resources pertaining to competitor
intelligence
High
Technical reports and
analysis
Technical research and links
to Web sites containing
relevant thought leadership material
High
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
110

8. provided. Therefore, any project that is undertaken
now should be evaluated in terms of its ability to be
integrated into a more sophisticated knowledge
management infrastructure at some stage in the
future.
When defining the enterprise-wide knowledge
management strategy, it is very important for
knowledge management leaders to remember that
managing knowledge will need cultural change, and
that takes time and it might also take time for the
enterprise to see an increased return on the
investment made. It is recommended that the
following guidelines should be followed by the top
management of the enterprise:
.
Understand the value of knowledge in the
enterprise and its role in competitive advantage.
.
Understand the economic consequences of
knowledge management practices in the
enterprise.
.
Understand how knowledge management
practices in the enterprise compare to those in
competing enterprises.
.
Understand the role of knowledge management
function in building enterprise capability for the
future.
Conclusion
In an enterprise as large and diverse as that in
question, the concept of a “knowledge audit” may
differ dramatically from that used within a smaller,
less complex enterprise. Limited resources and
leadership expectations demanded that a high-level,
strategic methodology be used to establish what
enterprise knowledge and information was required
across the enterprise, as opposed to within each
specific division. As can be evidenced from the results
of the audit, employees have some fairly basic
knowledge and information needs that must be
satisfied before any further investigations take place.
Once the fundamental building blocks of knowledge
content are established, it is hoped that more
sophisticated solutions can be developed to enable
enhanced knowledge management activities, which
are focused on individual capabilities within each
business unit. Only then can a knowledge
management strategy be implemented that will
ensure sustainable competitive advantage within the
enterprise.
References
Allweyer, T. (1997), “A framework for redesigning and managing
knowledge processes”, available at: www.processworld.
com/content/docs/8.doc (accessed 15 January 2000).
Bajaj, A. (1998), Factors Relevant to Senior Information Systems
Managers’ Decisions to Adopt New Computing Paradigms:
An Exploratory Study, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2001), “Organization
knowledge management: a contingency perspective”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 23-55.
Capshaw, S. (1999), “Whaddya know: find out with a knowledge
audit the first step towards knowledge management,
available at: www.aiim.org/inform/july99/p16.html
(accessed 15 January 2000).
Doyle, D. and Du Toit, A. (1998), “Knowledge management in a
law firm”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 3-8.
Eisenhart, M. (2001), “XML unlocks information”, available at:
www.destinationcrm.com/km/dcrm_km_article.
asp?id ¼ 800 (accessed 12 January 2002).
Gartner Group (2000a), “Gartner reports the knowledge
workplace is transforming organizational processes”,
available at: http://www.gartner.com/public/static/boutgg/
pressrel/pr032300.html (accessed 17 January 2000).
Gartner Group (2000b), Business Processes Modeling and
Knowledge Mapping, Gartner Advisory Commentary.
Gartner Group (2000c), “Mapping knowledge to the process:
directions to success”, Advisory Research Note.
Kirrane, D.E. (1999), “Getting wise to knowledge management”,
Association Management, Vol. 51 No. 8, p. 3.
Kok, J.A. (1999), “A framework for managing knowledge to
achieve competitive advantage in an enterprise”, MBA
dissertation University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J.
and Browning, C. (1999), “The knowledge audit”,
available at: http://userpages.umbc.edu/,buchwalt/
papers/Kmaudit.htm (accessed 12 January 2002).
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2000), “Easing into knowledge
management”, available at: www.pwcglobal.com/
extweb/manissue.nsf/DocID/19578D9DB8858A9
A85256762004CB610 (accessed 15 January 2000).
Robertson, J. (2002), “Benefits of a KM framework”, available
at: www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200207/
se_07_31_02a.html (accessed 12 January 2002).
Seeley, C.P. (2002), “Igniting knowledge in your business
processes: how to connect knowledge activities with your
business processes”, KM Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 12-15.
Stevens, L. (2000), “Knowing what your company knows:
a knowledge audit is a necessary precursor to a new KM
initiative”, available at: www.destinationcrm.com/km/
dcrm_km_article.asp?id ¼ 475 (accessed 12 January
2002).
Yin, R.K. (1993), Applications of Case Study Research, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Analysing knowledge requirements: a case study
D.B. Schwikkard and A.S.A. du Toit
Aslib Proceedings
Volume 56 · Number 2 · 2004 · 104-111
111