spiral, developed by Nonaka (1991) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1991, 1995) that.
describes the evolution of explicit and tacit knowledge in Japanese firms.
We have further analysed and adapted these approaches in order to develop a.
framework that best serves our objectives, namely to emphasise:.
(1) the business context at the start of the effort;.
(2) the specific infrastructure and processes that have been created to support the.
effort; and.
(3) the results obtained and lessons learned.
Thus the adopted framework (given graphically in Figure 1) classifies the.
characteristics of a knowledge management effort under the attributes of: .
contextgoals; strategy; culture; technological, organisational and process infrastructure.
; and results obtained and lessons learned.
Within our classification, the technology used, the organisational structures and the.
business processes are mapped explicitly to the knowledge management processes.
Context goals knowledge management strategy knowledge management processes supporting tools.
and business processes cultureOrgan IsatIonal InfrastructureTechnologIcal Infrastructure lessons learned results.
Figure 1: The framework adopted in the study The paragraphs below discuss the main elements of the framework.
Context. .
The context element of our framework outlines the most important drivers.
and constraints of each consultancy`s knowledge management effort and highlights.
the main external and market forces (e.g. speed in providing services, globalisation).
and internal, corporate infrastructure forces (e.g. decreased cost of distributive.
computing, downsizing and restructuring efforts, etc) that resulte to the initiation of.
the effort.
Goals. .
The goals stated are those of the KM effort and not the firm's high-level.
business goals. They are either associated to the firm's oevrall purposes and.
business objectives or to more specific issues like the efficiency of engagement.
teams or the development of productive technology infrastructures.
