Facilitating new knowledge creation and obtaining KM maturity

Priscilla A. Arling and Mark W.S. Chun

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework designed to assess the capacity of a knowledge management (KM) system to facilitate new knowledge creation. Design/methodology/approach A longitudinal case study methodology, in a single company, Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), was used to test the framework. Findings New knowledge creation is best supported through mature KM systems that include all four modes of knowledge creation: combination, externalization, socialization, and internalization. KM systems and environments as a whole reach maturity by progressing through stages, which is presented as a KM maturity model. Research limitations/implications By combining Nonakas knowledge creation theory with Wittrocks generative learning activities, the paper illuminates both the why and how of new knowledge creation, in a way that can be applied to KM technological initiatives. One of the limitations of this study is the generalizability of the ndings, which may be limited by the single case study method used. Practical implications The framework provides a rubric against which both old and new KM initiatives can be assessed to determine whether they are capable of generating new knowledge. The maturity model provides a template against which organizations can map their progress towards a mature KM environment. Originality/value Much of the literature on KM systems has focused on capturing knowledge and disseminating it. Few studies have provided practical, theoretically based advice on how to create new knowledge and what aspects of information systems can facilitate that creation. The framework and maturity model can serve as guides in that process. Keywords Knowledge management, Case studies, Modelling Paper type Case study

Priscilla A. Arling is an Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems at the College of Business, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Mark W.S. Chun is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California, USA.

1. Introduction
Despite the importance of knowledge as an asset, few organizations truly understand how to manage knowledge to achieve their goals (Yu, 2005). To actualize knowledge management, rms frequently turn to technology-based information systems such as knowledge repositories and expert databases (Durcikova and Gray, 2009). These information systems, developed to support and enhance organizational knowledge processes, are referred to as knowledge management systems (KMSs) (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Much of the literature on KMSs has focused on the process of capturing and disseminating knowledge. However to gain a competitive advantage from knowledge, rms must accomplish more than the redistribution of existing knowledge, they must generate new knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). The process of creating new knowledge has been referred to as double-loop learning (Argyris, 1977) or generative learning (Senge, 1990). Generative learning is challenging to achieve in organizations because it requires more than the application of existing knowledge to new situations. Generative learning focuses on the reframing and re-visioning what is currently known, in order to create what is currently unknown (Senge, 1990). Senge (1990) distinguishes generative learning by comparing it to

Received: 18 May 2010 Accepted: 18 October 2010

DOI 10.1108/13673271111119673

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011, pp. 231-250, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 231

adaptive learning. Adaptive learning focuses on solving problems using an existing framework and making small, incremental changes. Generative learning questions the existing framework of problem solving to create new options and new knowledge. This type of learning requires an understanding of systems and relationships that link key issues and events (Slater and Narver, 1995). The KM literature is replete with examples of innovative approaches to capturing and sharing knowledge. People-nder systems, knowledge databases, search capabilities and blogs, are a few examples of how KMSs have made existing knowledge more widely available. However, what is less frequently discussed is how KMSs are facilitating generative learning and the extent to which new knowledge is being created. While prior work has provided high level frameworks for knowledge management, few studies have offered prescriptive advice on what features of KMSs facilitate knowledge creation. In order to improve future KMS implementations, the authors wanted to know What are the features of KMSs that foster the creation of new knowledge? This article describes a framework that can be used to assess the capacity of a KMS to foster generative learning. To test the framework the authors conducted a longitudinal case study in a single company, Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR). The article describes how PWR moved from a KM environment that focused primarily on capturing and storing data to an environment that facilitated new knowledge creation. The article also presents a model, called the KM Maturity model, which illustrates how rms develop knowledge management competencies that lead to on-going new knowledge generation. Both the framework and the model can serve as tools for organizations seeking to generate new knowledge for competitive advantage. To the authors knowledge, this article is among the few to present a set of specic characteristics that can be incorporated into knowledge management systems in order to facilitate new knowledge creation. Together, the framework presented and case study highlight knowledge creation activities that are often found in in-person knowledge initiatives, but can be easily be missed in technology-based initiatives. By combining Nonakas knowledge creation theory with Wittrocks generative learning activities, the framework highlights the why and how of new knowledge creation, in a way that can be applied to KM technological initiatives.

2. Background
2.1 What is new knowledge? In order to assess the capacity of an organizational system to generate new knowledge, the rst step is to dene knowledge and then to how determine if it is new. Knowledge is dened as a justied belief that increases an entitys capacity for effective action (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Nonaka, 1994). The belief is justied because it is grounded in information as well as the values and prior understandings of the holder (Nonaka, 1994), which means that knowledge is relational and context-specic. The belief is related to prior beliefs and in order to be meaningful, the context in which it was developed must be understood (Nonaka et al., 2001). The belief must also be linked in some way to effective action, so that the creation of knowledge also implies the creation of something of value (von Krogh, 1998). Whether or not a belief has value, and therefore whether or not it is considered knowledge, is based on the context in which it is created or used, including the beliefs of others (Nonaka et al., 2001). Nonakas theory is based on Polanyis (1966) notion that there are two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge can be articulated, codied and transmitted in some type of symbolic form or natural language (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Tacit knowledge on the other hand has a personal quality, and is rooted in action, commitment and involvement in a specic context (Nonaka, 1994). Tacit knowledge is difcult to articulate, and is often characterized as personal skills, mental models and know-how that are deeply ingrained in an individual (Polanyi, 1966).

PAGE 232 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

 While Nonakas four categories are useful at a high level, they provide little guidance as to specic actions that can be taken to facilitate knowledge creation.

Nonaka (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009) posits that new knowledge is created through the conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge. There are four modes of conversion: socialization, combination, externalization or internalization. Socialization is the process of converting one individuals tacit knowledge to another individuals tacit knowledge through interpersonal interaction. Combination is the process of creating new explicit knowledge by reconguring, re-categorizing and re-conceptualizing existing explicit knowledge. Externalization is the process of converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, while internalization is the process of converting explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge. An example of externalization is the articulation of best practices or lessons learned, while internalization is exemplied by the learning that occurs from reading (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). While Nonakas four categories are useful at a high level, they provide little guidance as to specic actions that can be taken to facilitate knowledge creation. In order to actualize these Nonakas modes in a rm, managers and system developers need to understand what activities facilitate the converting, relating and combining of knowledge into new knowledge. They need to understand the activities that correspond to generative learning. 2.2 Generative learning and feedback in the creation of new knowledge The process of combining, converting and relating ideas to create new knowledge is called generative learning (Senge, 1990; Wittrock, 1990). Wittrock (1990) states that for generative learning to occur, the learner must understand not only how existing knowledge components relate to each other, but also how those components t in with the learners internal knowledge and memory. He lists two general types of activities that aid in generative learning: Organizing activities. These are activities that generate relationships that organize information. Examples are composing titles and headings, writing summaries, constructing main ideas, drawing graphs, preparing tables, stating objectives and asking questions. Integrating activities. These are activities that generate integrated relationships between what the learner sees, hears or read and his internal knowledge or memory. Examples are participating in demonstrations, composing metaphors, drawing analogies, providing examples, drawing pictures, developing interpretations, paraphrasing, drawing inferences. Wittrocks generative learning activities suggest concrete ways in which Nonakas four modes of knowledge creation can be enacted. Organizing activities relate to creating explicit knowledge either through combination or externalization. Tables combine, categorize and relate existing explicit knowledge and in doing so, create new explicit knowledge. Summaries, titles and headers recongure existing explicit knowledge, making it more concise, and can also re-categorize knowledge. Graphs transform quantitative knowledge to visual knowledge. When the existing knowledge is tacit, stating objectives and asking questions can help organize and externalize the knowledge. Asking questions helps organize knowledge by prompting reection on the implications and consequences of the knowledge (Grabinger and Dunlap, 2002). Integrating activities relate to the creation of new tacit knowledge. New tacit knowledge can be created through demonstrations via the modes of internalization or socialization.

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 233

Hands-on application of knowledge is often termed learning by doing and is one way in which explicit knowledge is internalized and converted to new tacit knowledge for an individual. The category of demonstrations also includes the sharing of experiences and perspectives. By just being around others, common perspectives develop and socialization, or tacit to tacit knowledge conversion can arise (Nonaka, 1994). Demonstrations can also provide opportunities for the externalization of knowledge as they provide the opportunity to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge that is shown to others. Metaphors and analogies aid in creating new knowledge by helping individuals to articulate their own perspectives. They help capture the complexities of issues, revealing otherwise hidden tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). For similar reasons pictures, examples, interpretations, paraphrases and inferences aid in creating relationships and thereby help make tacit knowledge explicit. These activities help others understand complex knowledge in order to internalize it, integrate it with existing tacit knowledge and make it their own. The generating, organizing and integrating of relationships are key activities related to new knowledge creation. However in order for those relationships to be considered new knowledge, one more step must be taken. The potential new knowledge must be justied and deemed meaningful in the current context. Potential new knowledge is often justied by getting feedback from others (Cross and Sproull, 2004) and interacting with others (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). Feedback allows individuals to compare their tentative knowledge to others knowledge, and to validate the viability and value of the tentative knowledge (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Feedback received during learning can either facilitate or hinder new knowledge creation (Argyris, 1977). New knowledge can be considered to be threatening or inconsistent in relation to existing knowledge, and can be deemed to be non-viable or of little value. Alternatively organizations can advance the proposition that alternative knowledge can facilitate goal attainment. In such situations tentative new knowledge is more likely to have the opportunity to be deemed valuable and to be justied. Feedback assists in all four modes of knowledge creation, since it can be used to justify both tacit and explicit new knowledge. Together the concepts of Nonakas four modes, generative learning and feedback offer important insights into how new knowledge creation can be facilitated. Yet few rms understand how the processes, procedures and systems put in place as part of organizational KM may or may not contribute to new knowledge creation (Cross et al., 2001). In the next section a framework is presented which can be used to assess the degree to which KM initiatives have the capacity to facilitate the creation of new knowledge in a rm. A generative learning assessment framework The proposed framework, shown in Table I, begins by leveraging Wittrocks (1990) work on generative learning activities. The authors suggest that KM initiatives that can accommodate these activities will facilitate new knowledge creation. Each item in Table I lists a possible KM facility, that is, a system function that can foster new knowledge creation. A KM initiative can be evaluated as to the extent to which it accommodates the activities listed and thereby facilitates new knowledge creation. The organizing processes suggested by Wittrock make up the rst six facilities in the framework. The integrating processes comprise the next six facilities. Column 3 in Table I notes the primary purpose of each facility, either organizing or integrating. Column 4 notes Nonakas mode of knowledge creation associated with each facility and indicates the type of new knowledge created, either tacit or explicit. Finally, several authors have noted that feedback is key to justifying tentative new knowledge (Argyris, 1977; Cross and Sproull, 2004). Therefore item number 13 is included in the framework, the facility to provide and receive feedback.

3. Research method
The framework was tested through a single longitudinal case study. Case studies are appropriate when the unit of analysis is a system of action rather than individuals or groups, and the viewpoint of multiple respondents is desired (Yin, 2002). The authors focused on understanding the KM initiatives of one company, Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne, and how those

PAGE 234 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

Table I New knowledge creation framework for evaluating KM systems facility to assist in new knowledge creation
Facility no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Facility description Facility to create and provide headers and titles Facility to create summaries or state main ideas Facility to create tables Facility to create graphs Facility to state objectives Facility to ask questions Facility to demonstrate knowledge Facility to capture metaphors or analogies Facility to provide examples of the application of knowledge Facility to provide pictures Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases Facility to make inferences Facility to solicit and obtain feedback Facility purpose Organizing Organizing Organizing Organizing Organizing Organizing Integrating Integrating Integrating Knowledge creation mode(s) Combination: explicit-to-explicit Combination: explicit-to-explicit Combination: explicit-to-explicit Combination: explicit-to-explicit Combination: explicit-to-explicit or Externalization: tacit-to-explicit Combination: explicit-to-explicit or Externalization: tacit-to-explicit Socialization: tacit-to-tacit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit Externalization: tacit-to-explicit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit Externalization: tacit-to-explicit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit Externalization: tacit-to-explicit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit Externalization: tacit-to-explicit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit Externalization: tacit-to-explicit or Internalization: explicit-to-tacit n/a

10 11 12 13

Integrating Integrating Integrating Justifying new knowledge

initiatives facilitated new knowledge creation. The longitudinal analysis aided in providing a rich understanding and evaluation of continuity and change in the KM initiatives. In particular, it enabled the authors to examine the phenomenon in a natural setting and to explore new theoretical ideas where there has been relatively little prior research and theory formulation (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2002). PWR was selected for study because they were in the process of implementing multiple KM initiatives. 3.1 Data collection Data collection involved multiple sources of historical data, which were triangulated to establish construct validity and reliability. The data collection was performed in two phases during a 21-month time period. In the rst phase, one of the authors collected both public and condential corporate archival data related to the KM initiatives. The primary sources of data were archived corporate internal analyses, organization charts, strategic planning documents from the KM department, minutes of meetings, external consultant reports, internal correspondence, memos, and e-mails. Secondary sources included industry reports, public disclosures, media publications, and internet articles. While collecting archival data, the authors together documented the general direction of the process that PWR followed to design and implement KM initiatives, the primary actors involved, as well as the features and use of the KM systems. In the second phase of data collection, one of the authors and 15 members of PWRs KM team together spent two months conducting formal interviews with individuals who sponsored, supported, or participated in the project. Included were 40 top executives from the rms eight product groups and six program teams. These interviews provided detailed data on how the KM systems were perceived and experienced, and how initiatives evolved. To ensure accuracy and to promote triangulation, case data were reviewed and veried by key actors involved in the project. Participant observation activities were conducted, which culminated in eld notes and journal reections. Covered were activities such as informal hallway conversations with employees, status report meetings, and planning meetings. A database was generated to organize and store the data. The data extracted from these multiple sources were coded to reect the constructs identied in the theory being studied. After the data had been coded and grouped, it was put into a temporal process model which was used to identify gaps to compare trends in the

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 235

observed data with those predicted by theory (Yin, 2002). The technique of pattern matching was used to move back and forth between the empirical data and possible theoretical conceptualizations (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2002). Specically the authors began by looking for examples of new knowledge creation through socialization, combination, externalization and internalization. The authors then looked for examples of one of the 13 facilities in the framework. In instances where the researchers identied gaps between the empirical data and possible theoretical conceptualizations, the authors revisited the data by going back to the interviewees to obtain additional data or to clarify data that already had been collected.

4. Case study
PWR focuses on the development and manufacturing of rocket propulsion and space exploration engines for the defense industry. In total, there are over 4,000 engineers at PWR that comprise the key group of employees who are responsible for creating and developing leading defense-industry knowledge. Engineers were hired into process groups and were then assigned to one of the six program-groups. The duration of typical program assignments was anywhere between six months to ve years, depending on the nature and portion of the program for which they were assigned. Throughout their careers at PWR, engineers were encouraged to switch process and program groups in order to diversify their skills. Limited project budgets encouraged a competitive environment at PWR. This caused engineers to generally not want to share their expertise with other engineers, so that they may be deemed more valuable to the rm. The motivation to help others through knowledge sharing was constrained and generative learning was stied. PWR was under constant pressure from their customers to develop products faster and more cheaply. However, individualized KM in the groups continued to plague effective KM in the organization as a whole, because engineers rarely shared their knowledge with others outside their group. Methodologies for managing knowledge were typically documented within process groups and program groups and existing knowledge was stored at the desks of the engineers. Knowledge that was created within process and program groups often remained in the minds of the seasoned engineers, or was documented on notepads and stored in personal ling cabinets and computer hard drives. This made the creation of new knowledge challenging across the organization since existing knowledge was rarely exploited or rened by others. Existing knowledge was seldom experimented with in new contexts and knowledge generation was not promoted. As a rst step in improving knowledge management at PWR, Kiho Sohn was hired into the newly created chief knowledge ofcer (CKO) position and was tasked with rejuvenating the rms KM efforts. Within a month of investigating the current state of the rms KM environment, Kiho and the KM team found there were two key issues that plagued the rms ability to leverage existing knowledge and create new knowledge. First, engineers did not leverage existing knowledge because they were not aware that other knowledge sources existed within the rm. The team recommended that the IS infrastructure be improved to support and maintain knowledge so that new knowledge could be generated. Second, the KM team acknowledged that the culture of the rm typically did not support leveraging of existing knowledge, as engineers hoarded knowledge to make themselves more valuable to the rm. As a result, engineers were prevented from learning of their colleagues work and using it to generate new knowledge. 4.1 Early KM initiatives Over a period of six years multiple KM initiatives were implemented by the PWR KM team. This section describes the initiatives, which were studied by the authors after implementation. Each initiative was analyzed using the framework, looking for evidence of Wittrocks generative learning activities and Nonakas modes of knowledge creation. An overview of the analysis results is shown in Table II. Department and program-group databases. One of the earliest attempts to manage knowledge at PWR came in the form of department and program-group databases. These

PAGE 236 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

Table II Facilities leveraged for new knowledge creation by PWR KM system initiatives
Mode of new knowledge creation

Initiative

Facilities Leveraged No. 1. Facility to create and provide headers and titles No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 9. Facility to provide examples of application of knowledge No. 11. Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases No. 1. Facility to create and provide headers and titles No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 3. Facility to create tables No. 4. Facility to create graphs No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 6. Facility to ask questions No. 7. Facility to demonstrate knowledge No. 9. Facility to provide examples of application of knowledge No. 10. Facility to provide pictures No. 1. Facility to create and provide headers and titles No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 3. Facility to create tables No. 4. Facility to create graphs No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 8. Facility to capture metaphors or analogies No. 9. Facility to provide examples of application of knowledge No. 11. Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases No. 12. Facility to make inferences No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 6. Facility to ask questions No. 7. Facility to demonstrate knowledge No. 8. Facility to capture metaphors or analogies No. 11. Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases No. 12. Facility to make inferences No. 13. Facility to solicit and obtain feedback No. 1. Facility to create and provide headers and titles No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 3. Facility to create tables No. 4. Facility to create graphs No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 6. Facility to ask questions No. 7. Facility to demonstrate knowledge No. 8. Facility to capture metaphors or analogies No. 9. Facility to provide examples of application of knowledge No. 10. Facility to provide pictures No. 11. Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases No. 12. Facility to make inferences No. 13. Facility to solicit and obtain feedback No. 1. Facility to create and provide headers and titles No. 2. Facility to create summaries, state main ideas No. 5. Facility to state objectives No. 6. Facility to ask questions No. 8. Facility to capture metaphors or analogies No. 9. Facility to provide examples of application of knowledge No. 10. Facility to provide pictures No. 11. Facility to provide interpretation or paraphrases No. 12. Facility to make inferences No. 13. Facility to solicit and obtain feedback

Department and program-group Organizing through combination databases Organizing through externalization Organizing through combination/externalization

Library services

ROSC

Integrating through socialization/externalization/ internalization Organizing through externalization

Integrating through externalization

Mentoring program

Organizing through externalization Integrating through socialization/externalization/ internalization Justifying new knowledge Organizing through combination/externalization

Lunch-time KM technical seminars

Technical forums

Integrating through socialization/externalization/ internalization

AskMe and Goldre system

Justifying new knowledge Organizing through combination/externalization

Integrating through externalization/internalization

Justifying new knowledge

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 237

databases consisted of internal documents that were previously siloed in folders and le cabinets, each accessible to only a small proportion of the PWR staff. Analysis showed that knowledge creation occurred primarily through Nonakas modes of combination and externalization, and Wittrocks mode of organizing. Indicative of combination, there was evidence of existing knowledge that was recongured, re-categorized and re-conceptualized. Documents were also put into a form that could facilitate new combinations by others. Multiple examples of Wittrocks organizing activities were found (see Table II). Internal documents of prior studies were indexed by key words, titles, and authors names. The documents were then put into the library computers systems so that librarians could perform key word searches. The initiative provided the opportunity to re-categorize documents that had previously been in knowledge silos. Since the librarians understood the bigger picture of the vast types of knowledge across PWR, they were able to nd new and multiple categories to which the existing knowledge might apply. In doing so they re-conceptualized what was once thought as knowledge applicable only to a single project, and made it useful to multiple departments and projects. In addition to organizing existing knowledge, the initiative created knowledge in the form of summaries and abstracts. In these summaries and abstracts, two modes of knowledge creation were evident, combination and externalization. New knowledge was created through combination when the abstracts stated the main ideas and objectives of the work. There was also evidence of Wittrocks integrating activities and Nonakas externalization. To create the summaries and abstracts, knowledge in the documents was interpreted and paraphrased, and this was explicitly documented. PWR library services. The PWR library services was another early KM initiative. The librarys primary role in knowledge creation was to aid in the leveraging of existing knowledge. PWRs library services consists of 4,000 square feet of books, white papers from completed projects, as well as other documents containing knowledge of the rm (for example, 100,000 reports resided on microche and 25,000 reference books). In this initiative, new knowledge was created by Wittrocks organizing activities, through Nonakas combination and externalization. Librarians created header, titles, summaries, document main ideas and recorded the objectives of the stored work. Comments from one of PWRs librarians, Susie (a pseudonym), illustrate Wittrocks integrating activities and Nonakas internalization mode. Susie describes how library services helped one scientist create new knowledge by applying existing knowledge in a new context:
We recently had a request from an engineer working on the J2X rocket engine. He was in the process of testing a component of the new generation of rocket engines. . . . [He] wanted to learn from the experiences and knowledge of other the engineers who had worked on the earlier generations of the engine [J2 engine, was used in the Saturn V] in hopes of avoiding any costly mistakes. The engineer was able to learn about the knowledge learned from the testing efforts of the prior generation rockets and apply the knowledge that he learned from reviewing the documentation that the rm had retained and saved the rm over $150,000 because he was able to forego re-running tests on the rocket engines that had already done in prior years.

The library services initiative also showed evidence of Wittrocks integrating activities, that supported knowledge creation through Nonakas modes of socialization, internalization and externalization. This was accomplished by providing venues where scientists could demonstrate their knowledge to others, display pictures of work, and provide examples knowledge applications. The library helped to facilitate over 20 knowledge sharing seminar series and seven KM share fair conferences. Evidence was also seen of Wittrocks organizing via Nonakas modes of combination and externalization, as scientists prepared to exhibit their work in the seminars and conferences. Exhibitors were encouraged to create tables of data as well as graphs to aid in depicting their work. Displays and presentations provided headers and titles, stated the main ideas and objectives of the work, and participants were encouraged to ask questions. Rocketdyne Operations Support Center. Rocketdyne Operations Support Center (ROSC) provided engineers with an opportunity to learn from prior projects in order to reduce the

PAGE 238 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

 The generating, organizing and integrating of relationships are key activities related to new knowledge creation.

time it took from development to market. The center was an electronic collection of predictions, hypotheses and ndings developed by scientists regarding rocket components and functions. Thomas (a pseudonym), a lead member of the KM Team, explained the value of ROSC and the typical procedure that engineers would take to leverage existing knowledge:
When engineers complete their projects, they are asked to document the details of their efforts and note the predictions that were established during their development efforts. Examples of this would include the reuse levels of pumps or components that went into engine design. Engineers who work on similar projects look at the assessments made by the prior tests and are expected to use this knowledge to establish a new and improved set of predictions. This new set of predictions helps them to see how well the engines will fare [computer simulation] before actually going to physical test.

Analysis of the ROSC documents showed that the center facilitated Wittrocks organizing and integrating activities through the externalization mode. This was accomplished by providing a platform for scientists to document the application of knowledge and their personal experiences during hands-on testing of rocket components. The tacit to explicit knowledge conversion took several forms. In the ROSC documentation engineers stated their objectives for each test, making explicit knowledge that was formerly only in their heads. Predictions and insights gained from the analysis of test data were also made explicit, often expressed in tables and graphs. Summaries of the tests and analyses added context and details that likely enhanced others understanding of the knowledge. Documentation of tests included interpretation of the ndings as well as analogies to other equipment or other types of uses. Finally, the completed documents included headers and titles. There was also evidence that this tacit-turned-explicit knowledge was later used in re-conversion of explicit-to-tacit knowledge. Thomas explained:
[The new engineers] actually use knowledge generated in prior tests and incorporated their own predictions in the testing and analysis to determine if the rocket engines are sick [not working] before actually engaging in any physical tests [. . .] These procedures not only save the company money because it reduces testing and analysis costs, but it also improves the knowledge that already exists in the rm [. . .] the decision and knowledge generated by prior projects helps the current projects become more efcient and knowledgeable [. . .] after the project is completed, these same engineers are then asked to document the knowledge generated and the predictions used in their tests and analysis so that other engineers can use it for future projects.

In other words, new engineers interpreted the explicit knowledge in the context of their new engines and made inferences regarding possible results. This new tacit knowledge resulted in new predictions and savings in terms of both time and money in the testing of rockets. Of the three initiatives implemented at this point, the case study analysis suggested that library services had been the most effective at facilitating new knowledge creation. Librarians and users noted that the services helped them explore new ideas for projects and provided a structure that helped them combine others ideas with their own. The demonstrations and examples of knowledge application were deemed particularly valuable in terms of helping users learn and create. Interviewees cited cases where attending demonstrations aided in solving new problems in their projects. The other initiatives, specically the databases and the ROSC, were useful, but were not deemed as effective at facilitating new learning.

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 239

Despite the improvements made in all of the early initiatives, there was a feeling that existing knowledge was not being leveraged to its full potential in terms of creating new knowledge. Kiho, the rms CKO, recalled:
Earlier in our KM efforts, we were really good at capturing existing knowledge. However, one of the challenges that we continued to face was that we werent doing a good job at facilitating, capturing and documenting newly created knowledge. Because of this, we had to expand our KM initiatives.

4.2 Expanded KM initiatives As the KM team matured and gained experience, the initiatives exhibited a greater number and variety of knowledge creating facilities. The KM team began to host inter-company activities aimed at providing the rms engineers with opportunities to establish a professional network with subject matter experts. These experts had the knowledge, experience, and skills needed for successful project development efforts. Another goal was to provide an opportunity to tacitly learn from other engineers. The aim of offering these activities was to bridge gaps among the engineers knowledge sources and to share the knowledge of others in hopes of providing alternative ways to approach product development. These activities included the mentoring program, lunchtime KM seminars and share fairs. Mentoring program. In the mentoring program senior engineers were paired with younger or newly hired engineers in order to expose them to the expertise and knowledge that had been developed at PWR. This one-on-one mentorship was intended to supplement the knowledge and skills that the younger engineers possessed. It enabled new engineers to learn how the senior engineers developed products and understand the methodologies used to create knowledge. The program also exposed new engineers to additional knowledge sources which they might otherwise not had been aware of. The mentorship program also enabled scientists to share new technologies and techniques with their mentors (i.e., reverse mentoring). This allowed the more seasoned engineers to learn and apply more recent and innovative approaches to product development. Interviews revealed that the program offered repeated opportunities to create new knowledge. Both senior and junior engineers spoke about the ability to ask questions, state objectives, and summarize ideas, all of which were evidence of Wittrocks organizing and Nonakas modes of combination or externalization. Numerous examples of integrating through externalization and internalization were also evident. Metaphors, analogies, and interpretations were leveraged to both explain concepts and help learners integrate new concepts with their own tacit experiences. The personal, one-on-one aspect of the mentorship meetings facilitated the understanding of more complex knowledge. It also provided an opportunity to solicit and obtain feedback, in order to justify new knowledge. Lunchtime KM technical seminars and forums. Once a month the KM team hosted a lunch brown bag seminar, where a senior engineer was invited to share how he or she solved a problem during program development. During these seminars, engineers shared their methodology with other engineers who had addressed similar problems or were interested in learning more about process and program group development. The idea behind this event was to create an environment where younger engineers could network with other engineers and to provide opportunities to learn from more senior engineers. Often the result was that engineers would be immediately able to apply the learning to their current projects. The KM team also sponsored an annual internal technical forum, aimed at exposing and highlighting knowledge creation across different process and program groups. The content and focus of the fair was changed annually. A KM team member remarked:
The purpose of the internal Technical Forum is to make our engineers aware of the accomplishments, resources, and knowledge of others process and program groups within the rm. More importantly, this event gives our engineers the opportunity to learn and apply new tools, methodologies, and processes to their current projects [. . .] Every year, 40 teams are invited to showcase their KM capabilities and to teach their colleagues how to replicate their

PAGE 240 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

success in their department teams [. . .] The event is set up like a country fair, where the teams set up booths to show off their accomplishments and the tools / knowledge that were available for others to share. This format allows other engineers to learn from their accomplishments [. . .] Last year, we had over 350 employees participate in this event [. . .] One of the main benets of this event was the ability to highlight the key projects within the rm and to facilitate an environment of knowledge sharing, transfer, and application among our engineers.

Interviews of event attendees suggested that the forums and seminars were deemed excellent opportunities for knowledge creation. Attendees leveraged the opportunities to ask questions, in order to clarify ideas and resolve misunderstandings. The fairs allowed attendees to wander around, take time to digest the current knowledge being displayed, and to think about how it might apply to their own work. Attendees remarked that although it could be difcult to nd time to attend, these events were often the most useful of the KM initiatives in terms of sparking new ideas and adding value to their current work. Participants noted that the fairs allowed them to simultaneously interact with multiple experts. This made it easier to combine and integrate knowledge from multiple sources. There was evidence of the seminars and forums facilitating new knowledge generation across a wide variety and number of projects, validated by the subsequent success of those projects. Analysis showed that the seminars and forums offered every type of Wittrocks organizing and integrating activities, via all four of Nonakas modes of knowledge creation. Combination and externalization was evidenced when presenters created new knowledge through creating headers and titles, stating main ideas, and constructing tables and graphs for the presentations. Audience members asked questions, helping to externalize their new tacit knowledge and making it explicit. The seminars and forums also provided integrating opportunities, where scientists demonstrated their knowledge, offered examples of the application of that knowledge, posted pictures and offered interpretations. The activities also evidenced Nonakas socialization and internalization modes. Scientists heard metaphors and analogies, as presenters tried to help their audience make sense of the knowledge. Engineers who attended the seminars interpreted and made inferences within the context of their own projects. Presenters and audience members also had the opportunity to solicit and obtain feedback. The presenters asked for feedback on the projects being presented, and the audience solicited feedback on their new interpretations of the knowledge. In sum, the KM team and participants felt that the seminars and technical forums were the best approach to date for creating new knowledge. 4.3 Advanced technology-based KM initiatives With the knowledge gained from earlier initiatives, the KM team began working on more sophisticated technology-enabled efforts that they hoped would further facilitate new knowledge creation. PWR implemented two technology applications, AskMe and Goldre. The focus of these systems was to enable the rms engineers to search for existing knowledge within the rm and to engage in dialogue with the rms experts. AskMe and Goldre systems. AskMe is an application whose primary intent was to increase networking among employees. The application allowed engineers to locate and contact knowledge experts, locate knowledge communities, publish shared documents, and share frequently asked questions. The application also allowed users to publish lessons learned and to create blog entries to stimulate discussion. Additionally, scientists were able to search through project and product communities and to scan lessons learned to nd knowledge sources. A KM team lead, Frank (a pseudonym), remarked:

Among all the initiatives, the in-person group seminars and forums were the most effective at generating new knowledge.

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 241

AskMe was implemented because we wanted to enable our engineers to post questions for input or comment from the engineering community. For example, an engineer developer can post a question, How can engine thrust performance be measured? The application allows the engineering community to share their opinions and expertise via emails or blog posts. These contributions or collection of knowledge nuggets are documented within the system and made available to other engineers who can research the same topic in future development projects [. . .] AskMe was implemented to encourage and improve social networking among the rms engineers; it allows for the introduction of new colleagues whom the engineers did not know were experts on specic topics [. . .] It also encourages a collaborative learning environment for engineers to learn from each other and keeps a live document of the new knowledge.

The Expert Yellow Page is a function within the AskMe application. It contains a directory that allows engineers to identify themselves as experts on certain topics. It also provides a prole that species the engineers contact information and a list of their expertise and skills, so that other engineers can contact them and leverage their knowledge and expertise. By providing contact information, the application facilitates one-on-one discussion and knowledge exchange. Goldre is an advanced KM search engine that utilizes natural semantic language to enable engineers to conduct sophisticated searches across the companys numerous knowledge sources. The search engine marks and indexes key words in documents across the company. The application then establishes links between words and between documents. Goldre also allows engineers to conduct knowledge searches across sources outside of the rm via the Internet. The system helped engineers to conduct patent searches and innovation trend analyses, and assisted in nding information regarding scientic effects. The implementation of Goldre increased the ability of the engineers to locate knowledge within and outside of the rm by facilitating sophisticated and focused knowledge searches. Together, AskMe and Goldre showed evidence of Wittrocks organizing and integrating opportunities. The home page of AskMe, shown in Figure 1, demonstrates how headers and titles were used to organize communities of knowledge, simultaneously combining main ideas from separate communities. The content on the screen shows how users tended to summarize key points quickly and state main ideas early in their discussions. Figures 1 and 2 show questions being asked and answered in the system. In these ways new knowledge was created through Nonakas mode of combination and externalization. Figure 2 shows evidence of both tacit-to-explicit knowledge creation and a request for justication of new knowledge:
Somebody mentioned that BE levels for these gadgets would be 65-135% (as opposed to 30-50%). However, I have never seen anything like his mentioned in our manual or regulations [. . .]

The scientist had previously talked to someone who had tacit knowledge regarding BE levels. The engineer states his tacit knowledge about the BE levels, thereby making the tacit knowledge explicit. Next, because he has not previously seen written, formal conrmation of this knowledge, he asks for feedback from others to verify that this new explicit knowledge is justied. In the system scientists had the opportunity to reply, comment, rate quality and nominate knowledge posted as a best practice. In this way, the knowledge was reinterpreted and further justied. Figure 2 also shows how scientists posted pictures of themselves that accompanied their responses. Another feature of AskMe was Blogs, where scientists organized and integrated knowledge. The Blog in Figure 3 shows evidence of the use of headers and titles as well as the stating of main ideas and objectives. As with the conversation shown in Figure 2, scientists asked questions and commented on Blogs as well. They provided paraphrasing and interpretation of existing knowledge. Other entries in the system showed evidence of providing analogies, metaphors and examples. Scientists also had a unique opportunity to state objectives or main ideas when using Goldres semantic search engine. Key ideas such as combustion and fuel or sentences that state objectives could be entered as search criteria. Goldre would often

PAGE 242 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

Figure 1 AskMe homepage

Figure 2 AskMe system conversation example

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 243

Figure 3 AskMe system blog example

group previously unrelated documents and present that information to the scientist. Knowledge creation occurred when the scientist interpreted the documents and made inferences as to the applicability and validity of the systems proposed connection between the documents. In interviews and other documentation, the AskMe and Goldre systems were deemed among the most useful initiatives for generating new learning, second only to the technical seminars and forums. Interviewees remarked that the ability to nd and meet others, ask questions and engage in conversations was key to understanding and interpreting others knowledge. This in turn often led to new knowledge. The ability to express existing knowledge and potential new knowledge in a variety of forms was also a critical feature that aided knowledge creation. While tables and graphs were at times the best way to express ideas, at other times paraphrasing, metaphors or pictures were needed to enhance understanding. There was also evidence that the system helped users validate the value of potential new knowledge, by exposing it to others. Evidence of the new knowledge used in projects was also provided.

5. Discussion
The new knowledge creation framework shown in Table I proved to be a useful tool for better understanding PWRs KM initiatives. The framework provided the impetus to analyze the initiatives post-implementation and to determine how the initiatives contributed to knowledge creation at a detailed level. Applying the framework also sparked ideas of how new initiatives could be designed so that they could support new knowledge creation. Two key ndings emerged from the analysis. First, the authors suggest that new knowledge creation is best supported through mature KM systems that include all four modes of knowledge creation: combination, externalization, socialization and internalization. Second, the authors suggest that KM systems and environments as a whole reach maturity by progressing through the stages of the KM maturity model. In the next sections the ndings are discussed in detail.

PAGE 244 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

5.1 The need for mature KM systems Among all the initiatives, the in-person group seminars and forums were the most effective at generating new knowledge. Seminars and forums showed the most evidence of helping PWR staff create new knowledge that was employed in their work. These forums provided employees with the opportunity to engage in a dynamic and real-time exchange of knowledge that allowed them to simultaneously obtain the knowledge that they were seeking, get feedback, integrate the knowledge, and ask questions. All four modes of knowledge creation were exercised within one instance of engagement among the employees. Reviewing Table II, the authors believe KM initiatives were most effective when they supported all modes of new knowledge creation (combination, externalization, socialization and internalization) and all facilities (e.g. creating headers, stating objectives). KM systems that leverage all modes of new knowledge creation are considered in this research to be mature KM systems. In contrast, analysis of the more technology-centric initiatives (i.e. databases, ROSC, AskMe, and Goldre) showed less evidence of new knowledge creation. Even though the users of AskMe and Goldre shared examples where new knowledge was created, these examples were not quite as numerous, diverse or as certain as the evidence provided from seminars and forums. In an interpretation of the case data, knowledge creation in these contexts may have been limited due to the delay in responses, that is, the lack of real-time discussions or interactions. In addition, the technology-based initiatives tended to employ more limited modes of knowledge conversion and fewer facilities. Many of the same knowledge creation facilities were found in each of these initiatives, regardless of the sophistication of the technology implemented. The technology-centric initiatives used facilities no. 1 through no. 5, which centered on summarizing activities, such as developing headers, titles, main ideas, objectives and creating tables and graphs. The initiatives also used facilities no. 8, no. 9, no. 11 and no. 12, which involved the use of metaphors and analogies, interpretations, paraphrases and inferences. Although the technology-centric initiatives facilitated some modes of knowledge creation, they were not fully mature KM systems. Socialization and feedback. One particularly surprising nding from the analysis of the AskMe system was that the system did not support socialization. In conversations with the KM team and system users, AskMe was often perceived and described as a social system, where scientists found each other, interacted with each other and created knowledge through interaction. Indeed, a primary intent of the technology was to simulate or recreate, in a digital form, the socialness of the in-person seminars, forums and mentoring initiatives. The application of the framework however suggested that true socialization, which is the direct conversion of tact-to-tacit knowledge, was not possible through the text-based technology. Scientists used the AskMe Yellow Pages to nd experts on a topic, but they often did not directly contact these scientists to engage in conversation. Instead, they used the experts name to research the existing explicit documents written by the subject matter expert. New tacit knowledge was created in two steps, externalization rst, and then internalization. Experts converted their tacit to explicit knowledge, and stored that knowledge. Other scientists found that stored knowledge and converted it from explicit to tacit knowledge. The system did not differ extensively from earlier technology-centric initiatives in the way that new knowledge could be generated. Upon further review of the framework and the data, the authors realized that the perception that AskMe involved socialization was due to facility no. 13, the ability to solicit and obtain feedback. This facility in AskMe was able to mimic, in a technology-centric text-based initiative, the socialization previously only available through the in-person seminars, forums and mentoring. The reason that earlier technology initiatives had not proved as useful as AskMe, in terms of knowledge creation, was due to the lack of feedback. Prior initiatives had lacked the means by which to justify and deem new knowledge meaningful. The give and take of a dialogue is often critical to new knowledge creation (Tsoukas, 2009) and the feedback facility in AskMe was able to support a

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 245

dialogical process. Without the facility to justify new ideas and thoughts, those ideas and thoughts can dissipate. Ideas can fail to be recognized as new knowledge. This nding explained why the early technology initiatives had created some new knowledge, but had left the KM team feeling that existing knowledge was not fully being leveraged. Simply by adding a feedback mechanism, AskMe became a mature KM system, able to create knowledge through the modes of combination, externalization, and internalization, and by mimicking socialization. Facilitating interaction between modes. So why are all four modes of creation necessary to fully leverage existing knowledge in the generation of new knowledge? Nonaka (1994) notes that while each of the four modes can create new knowledge independently, organizational knowledge creation relies on the dynamic interaction between the modes. He states that it is in the interaction between modes, and in particular, the interaction between externalization and internalization, where new organizational knowledge is created. Through its feedback mechanisms the AskMe system facilitated a dialogue between externalization and internalization, so that new knowledge could be justied. The reason why new knowledge generation was limited in earlier technology-centric initiatives was due to the lack of dialogue between multiple modes and an inability to justify any potential new knowledge generated. For instance, the department and program-group databases combined and externalized knowledge, but did not facilitate socialization or internalization. The presence of a dialogue between modes also explains why the less technology-centric initiatives, such as lunchtime seminars and forums, were deemed so successful at generating new knowledge. Each mode can trigger the enactment of another mode, thereby supporting further knowledge generation. These triggers were evident in the seminars and forums as well as the AskMe system. For instance, through socialization in these initiatives, individuals become aware of subject matter experts. When these experts made their tacit knowledge explicit, it was more likely to be deemed meaningful. Hence the nal step in creating true new knowledge was taken, in that the knowledge was justied. This in turn would prompt another individual to internalize that knowledge, and in doing so, create new tacit knowledge. When explicit knowledge was justied, it was also more likely to be combined in the generation of further, new explicit knowledge. In addition the loop of knowledge creation in some initiatives spurred the use of other KM systems to generate knowledge. The new knowledge acquired in seminars, forums and AskMe frequently encouraged individuals to nd related knowledge in the program databases and ROSC, and to use the library services to nd other knowledge by an expert. As the authors considered the development of the more mature KM initiatives, they realized that the later initiatives such as AskMe and Goldre were very much the product of earlier KM efforts. PWR had not imagined these more mature KM projects out of thin air, but had rather determined the KM needs and focus for each initiative in stages. Each initiative had built on the lessons learned in prior efforts. The initiatives showed a progression from an individualistic view of knowledge to an integrated, generative view of knowledge. When the initiatives were put in sequential order and analyzed, they showed a rm growing in stages within a KM maturity model. In reviewing existing KM maturity models, the authors saw a need for a model based on empirical evidence that was publicly available and could be applied in a variety of organizations. Many existing KM models are either proprietary, specic to an industry (such as software development or construction), or have not been published in a peer-reviewed, established journal (for an broad-based, overview of maturity models see Hain and Back (2009)). The next section describes a KM Maturity model that can be used by various rms to assess progress in their KM efforts. 5.2 A KM maturity model Ross (2003) has suggested that organizational competencies in information technology architectures develop in four stages, progressing from the application silo stage, to standardized technology, to rationalized data and nally to a modular architecture stage.

PAGE 246 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

That work is applied and extended here to suggest that organizations develop KM competencies in stages as well, comprising a KM maturity model, shown in Figure 4. In many organizations, most knowledge is siloed, residing primarily in the individual. At this rst stage of maturity, the siloed knowledge stage, there are few organized knowledge management initiatives. New knowledge creation occurs mostly through single modes. This was the initial KM environment at PWR; only the knowledge needs of individuals were being met. As organizations become more aware of the value of their existing knowledge, initiatives to encode and store knowledge are started. In the second stage, the standardized knowledge stage, initiatives focus on making knowledge available to specic project or product teams. There is little integration and the mixing of modes of knowledge creation remains low. The rst initiatives of the PWR KM team were illustrative of this stage. The team centered their attention on combining existing knowledge, standardizing, encoding and storing it in databases. The focus expanded to serving the knowledge needs of project and product teams, but within those contexts the knowledge was still siloed. In the third stage, organizations realize that the power behind existing knowledge is not just in re-using that knowledge, but also in converting it into new knowledge. As environments and problems change, the new knowledge serves as a foundation for further new knowledge. KM initiatives begin to focus on organizing and disseminating knowledge across the organization so that new knowledge can be created through the integration of multiple modes. At PWR, Library Services was one of the early initiatives that focused on disseminating knowledge throughout the company. Through these services individuals were exposed to multiple modes of knowledge creation at one time. Finally, initiatives in an organization begin to reach the fourth stage, the generative knowledge stage. In this stage, all four modes of knowledge creation are leveraged to ensure that new knowledge is created, justied and deemed meaningful to the organization. Initiatives seek to provide knowledge that is customized to the current task at hand. PWR entered this stage with the advent of mentoring, lunchtime seminars, forums and AskMe. The power of integrating all four modes of knowledge creation was realized. By implementing mature individual KM initiatives PWR has moved further along in achieving a fully mature and integrated KM environment. These later initiatives facilitated the just-in-time discovery of existing knowledge and conversion to new knowledge by simultaneously leveraging the multiple modes of combination, externalization, socialization and internalization.

Figure 4

Low
Siloed Knowledge

KM MATURITY
Standardized Knowledge Integrated Knowledge

High
Generative Knowledge

Individual Employee Needs Few Organized Initiatives for Knowledge

Project/ Product Specific Needs Encoding and Storing Knowledge

Cross Project and Intracompany Needs

Customized Needs

Needs Met

Disseminating Knowledge

Generating New Knowledge High

Initiative Focus

Medium Low Low

Level of Mode Integration

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 247

5.3 Insights for practitioners While this article reviewed the KM initiatives of one particular company, PWR, the case offers insights for other practitioners embarking on their KM journey. Lessons learned at PWR and from this case study include: Pay attention to the details. The new knowledge creation framework helped to focus attention on the specic facilities in systems that aid in creating new knowledge. When designing new systems, think about these details and embed them in the design. Look holistically at KM initiatives in the organization. The portfolio of KM systems should work together to provide the modes needed to generate new knowledge. As was done in this case, take time to review and reect on how initiatives relate to each other. Use checklists and frameworks such as the one presented here to assess prior efforts, identify gaps and build lessons learned into new initiatives. Benchmark KM efforts against one another and against KM efforts by competitors. The comparisons of systems performed here highlighted benets and drawbacks of each system. Similarly, an awareness of how competitors are addressing KM issues, as well as knowledge of the KM maturity of those rms, can help set expectations and guide future efforts. Share key learning through regional and national KM conferences. This study highlighted that new knowledge is best generated when all four modes of knowledge creation are enacted together, as in seminars and forums. Leverage external conferences to take learning from other industries and adapt them to the context of the rm. Build a cadre of like-minded executives with whom ideas, problems and solutions can be freely exchanged.

6. Contributions, limitations and conclusions

Creating a mature, knowledge generating KM environment does not happen overnight or without planning. While prior work has provided high-level frameworks describing KM processes, there is a need to understand what specic aspects of KM initiatives aid new knowledge creation. A major contribution of this work is the integration of the work of Nonaka and Wittrock, in a framework that helps explain both the why and the how of new knowledge creation. Together the framework and the KM maturity model can serve as tools for rms seeking to generate new knowledge for competitive advantage. The value of the tacit/explicit knowledge distinction is, in part, its ability to help distinguish between knowledge assets that are immediately visible and knowledge assets that require interpretation to be understood (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). The framework here adds additional value to the tacit/explicit distinction by facilitating a better understanding of KMS attributes that support both immediately visible and perhaps somewhat hidden, interpreted knowledge. The framework provides a quick and easy rubric against which both old and new KM initiatives can be assessed. Finally, the maturity model provides a template against which organizations can map their progress towards attaining an integrated and knowledge generating KM environment. One of the limitations of this study is the generalizability of the ndings, which may be limited by the single case study method used. The study used a theoretically-based approach to propose why the assessment framework and maturity model would be appropriate for other KM environments. However, knowledge processes are composed of requirements that are complex and distributed across different actors whose knowledge base is uncertain (Markus and Majchrzak, 2002). While the application of the framework at PWR led to useful insights, the ndings may not be directly translatable to other organizations. More studies are necessary to assess the validity and reliability of the framework and maturity model in the context of multiple organizations. With a growing understanding of their KM environment, and what it takes to facilitate new knowledge generation, PWR continues to develop initiatives to help them progress further

PAGE 248 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011

along the KM maturity scale. In particular, they are in dialogue with other aerospace and defense rms to benchmark their KM initiatives. There are two primary benets for their efforts. First, they want to be able to share their best-known methods and learn from the best known initiatives of other rms. Second, they want to help facilitate an open dialogue with other rms in their industries. Together the rms can collaborate, brainstorm, and discuss the common KM initiatives that may work for the entire aerospace and defense industry, as well as any rms KM environment.

References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36. Argyris, C. (1977), Double loop learning in organizations, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 115-25. Cross, R. and Sproull, L. (2004), More than an answer: information relationships for actionable knowledge, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 446-62. Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L. and Borgatti, S. (2001), Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 100-20. Durcikova, A. and Gray, P. (2009), How knowledge validation processes affect knowledge contribution, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 81-107. Eisenhardt, K. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50. Grabinger, S. and Dunlap, J.C. (2002), Problem-based learning as an example of active learning and student engagement, in Yakho, T. (Ed.), Advances in Information Systems, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 375-84. Hain, S. and Back, A. (2009), State-of-the-Art on Maturity Models for Collaboration, Universitat St Gallen, St Gallen. Markus, M.L. and Majchrzak, A. (2002), A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 179-212. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and von Krogh, G. (2009), Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 635-52. Nonaka, I., Reinmoller, P. and Toyama, R. (2001), Integrated information technology systems for knowledge creation, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 827-48. Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, New York, NY. Ross, J.W. (2003), Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-43. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), Marketing orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74. Tsoukas, H. (2009), A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 941-57. von Krogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 133-53.

VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 249

Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57. Wittrock, M.C. (1990), Generative processes of comprehension, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 345-76. Yin, R. (2002), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Yu, L. (2005), Does knowledge sharing pay off?, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, p. 5.

About the authors

Priscilla A. Arling is an Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems in the College of Business, Butler University. She holds a PhD in Information and Decision Sciences from the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, and an MBA from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Her research interests include social network analysis, communication, health care management, knowledge management and systems theory. Priscilla A. Arling is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: parling@butler.edu Mark W.S. Chun is the Director of the Center for Applied Research, the Julian Virtue Professor (2008-2010), and an Associate Professor of Information Systems at Pepperdine Universitys Graziadio School of Business and Management. He earned a PhD in Information Systems from the University of Colorado at Boulder, an MBA from the University of California, Irvine, with an emphasis on management strategy, and a Bachelor of Business Administration with an emphasis on management information systems from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 250 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 2 2011