As a managerial construct, knowledge management (KM) optimizes organizational knowledge assets to achieve sustainable business advantages by connecting people with the intellectual resources needed to operate more effectively. Yet KM may have its greatest impact when used with repeatable, systems engineering-based "frameworks." As such, this study sought to compare and contrast the Stankosky Knowledge Management Framework (KMF) to other KMFs with special emphasis on the Wieneke-Price (aka General Motors) KM Domain Model, for the purpose of determining the validity of the four primary pillars of the Stankosky KMF as core components of modern-day KM frameworks.
Using a systematic literature review to gather current information regarding KM and its managerial frameworks, this study identified potential capability gaps in the Stankosky KMF in nine different domains. These perceived gaps in turn helped to field a 45-question self-administered survey which fueled statistical analysis and testing of four (4) question groups.
Three (3) of the four (4) question groups evaluated in this study suggest (from a majority rule perspective) that the Stankosky KMF leadership, learning, and technology pillars merit inclusion as components of a contemporary KM framework. However, juxtaposed to the works of Stankosky and Baldanza, Calabrese, Bixler, Eisner, Wiig, Davenport, and others this research also suggests that the Stankosky KMF organizational pillar in its current form, may not wholly fulfill the needs of today's KM community.
The contributions of this research primarily affect the academic and operational KM communities. Academically, it serves as a potential starting point for future research aimed at identifying and or validating the components and activities comprising modern-day KM frameworks. Operationally, it suggests various considerations for implementing KM frameworks that are capable of operating in myriad organizations and business domains. From an operational viewpoint it also proposes several new research opportunities, many with potentially significant ramifications, regarding the implementation of future KM frameworks and their potentially holistic impact on organizational performance.
|Advisor:||Stankosky, Michael A., Mazzuchi, Thomas A.|
|Commitee:||Baldanza, Carolyn R., Eisner, Howard, Mazzuchi, Thomas A., Murphree, Edward L.|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|Department:||Engineering Mgt and Systems Engineering|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/02, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Management, Information science|
|Keywords:||Knowledge framework, Knowledge management, Knowledge management framework, Stankosky Knowledge Management Framework|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be