How organisations evaluate their knowledge management projects: a meta-study of the period 1992-2002
Document Type
Journal Article
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan
Faculty
Faculty of Business and Public Management
School
School of Business
RAS ID
3242
Abstract
The key objective of this research was to develop an understanding of what organisations are measuring within the context of knowledge management (KM) evaluation. A comprehensive meta-analysis of international articles dealing with the evaluation of KM, Intellectual Capital and other closely related domains between the years 1992 and 2002 was undertaken. A total of 1539 articles reflected the search topic. A manual review of all abstracts resulted in a narrowed selection of 223 articles, sourced from 126 different journals. Data for 1992–1995 were rejected due to insufficient occurrences of empirical measurement. Content analysis with the use of the NUD*IST® software of the data resulted in 12 evaluation factors being identified. Four factors made up 72% of the study's findings: human capital, financial, process and customer. However, by charting the number of measures within each factor against each year from 1996 to 2002, some identifiable trends were highlighted. Financial, human capital, internal infrastructure and composite measures, such as the Balanced Scorecard, have grown in varying degrees in frequency of use, while customer, process, intellectual property, innovation and quality-related measures have gradually lost ground.
DOI
10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500066
Comments
Loermans, J. & Fink, D. (2005). How organisations evaluate their knowledge management projects: a meta-study of the period 1992-20023. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 3(3). 125 - 135. Available here