Information technology repositories and knowledge management ...

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

VINE 37,4

Information technology repositories and knowledge management processes

440

A qualitative analysis Massimo Franco and Stefania Mariano University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the impact of information technology repositories (ITR) in the implementation of KM processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. Design/methodology/approach – A case study design is used. Data are collected through the use of individual semi-structured interviews, observations and document analysis. Findings – This study found that three factors were likely to influence the knowledge retrieval process from information technology repositories and that the process of storage was connected to three distinct events that happened before, during, and after the repository was introduced into the organization. Furthermore, it was also found that knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval, were connected to individual learning. Research limitations/implications – This study has limitations connected to empirical generalizability because it is a single case study research. Also, this study focuses only on two knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. Practical implications – Findings suggest the need for managers to recognize the influence of leadership on knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge sharing and storage. Another implication is that, when an organization wants to make information technology repositories more effective, rules and templates should be implemented to correctly use and update such repositories. Originality/value – This research identifies the connections between knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval and individual learning processes. It also suggests four strategies to implement in order to make information technology repositories more effective. Keywords Business enterprise, Knowledge management, United States of America Paper type Case study

VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems Vol. 37 No. 4, 2007 pp. 440-451 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0305-5728 DOI 10.1108/03055720710838515

1. Introduction What constitutes effective information technology repositories (ITR)? According to Hansen (1999) “repositories bring together content from various data sources, providing a unified access point and reducing knowledge search costs” (Hansen, 1999, as cited by Alavi and Tiwana, 2003, p. 109). In the context of organizational knowledge (OK) and knowledge management (KM) literature, information technology (IT) represented a central topic. In the last three to five years, several researchers looked at the link between knowledge management and information technology (Constant et al., 1996; Hayes and Walsham, 2003; Stein and Zwass, 1995) estimating that almost 70 percent of publications on knowledge management focused on the design of information technology (Easterby-Smith et al., 2000): “information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been closely associated with the development of the great majority of knowledge management initiatives” (Hayes and Walsham, 2003, p. 54).

The analysis of the role of information technology in the design and development of knowledge management initiatives especially came from practitioners – first of all consultant companies. Researchers looked at the contribution of those systems to organizational memory (Anand et al., 1998; Stein and Zwass, 1995), defining information technology as the technical view of organizational learning (Huber, 1991): information technology “can contribute to sustained competitive advantage through the process of organizational learning” (Smith et al., 1996, p. 45). According to Olivera (2000), those technology systems served a variety of functions, such as storing large amounts of information, making information accessible to individuals, providing means for communication, generating records of interactions and transactions, and automating processes (p. 814). Members of an organization were able to periodically update information technology with new knowledge (Orlikowski, 1996), use information technology to safeguard the organization’s loss of knowledge depending on turnover (Argote et al., 1990), and locate other employees who had specific experience within the organization (Huber, 1991). It was stated that those systems had properties such as accessibility, reliability, and own-ability, that were superior to those of human experts and that, in some situations, were useful components of organizational memory (Huber, 1991, p. 106). Alavi and Tiwana (2003) described information technologies as “knowledge systems”, classifying them in four “knowledge processes” (Alavi and Tiwana, 2003, p. 106): (1) Creation, for the development of new know-how and capabilities. (2) Storage/retrieval, for the development of organizational memory, classified in internal (individual’s skills and organizational culture) and external (formal policies, procedures, manual and computer files). (3) Transfer, for the transmission of knowledge from one location to another. (4) Application, for the use of knowledge in decision-making and problem solving processes. According to the authors, several information technology tools were used to support those processes: . E-learning and collaboration support systems for the creation process. . Data warehousing, data meaning, and repositories for the storage and retrieval processes. . Communication support systems and enterprise information portals for the transfer process. . Experts systems and decision support systems for the application process. “It is useful to adopt a framework to categorize these tools and to relate them to the primary organizational KM processes” (Alavi and Tiwana, 2003, p. 106). Recent research on KM processes (Gammelgaard and Ritter, 2005) looked at barriers to knowledge transfer and retrieval, categorizing them into three categories: (1) Fragmentation, when knowledge is dispersed throughout the organization and thus “unknown” by employees.

Information technology repositories 441

VINE 37,4

442

(2) Overload, when a tremendous amount of knowledge is available and thus impossible to handle. (3) De-contextualization, when knowledge can be located but cannot be retrieved due to problems understanding the matter (pp. 133-134). Our paper addresses the impact of information technology repositories (ITR) in the implementation of KM processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. What makes information technology repositories work out? What are barriers to effective use of information technology repositories? What are solutions to those barriers? In this study we attempt to determine which factors are likely to influence knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval and how information technology repositories can be designed to make those processes effective. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to provide a means to better understand barriers to information technology repositories and to propose potential solutions to those barriers. We found that three factors were likely to influence the knowledge retrieval process from information and communication technologies and that the process of storage was connected to three distinct events that happened before, during, and after the repository was introduced into the organization. Furthermore, we also found that knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval were connected to individual learning. We highlighted different aspects of such a learning process and we proposed solutions to knowledge barriers that could make information technology repositories more effective. 2. Research methods and data collection We conducted an in-depth case study (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995, 2000; Yin, 2003) of a single organization in 2005. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 2001), non-participant on-site observations (Creswell, 2003) and data analysis (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 2001). We focused on several sub-units of analysis. This was an embedded study (Yin, 2003). We selected participants on the recommendation of a “key informant” which in this study was the manager of each practice of one organization’s division. This was a reputational case selection strategy (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984, cited in Merriam, 1988; Miles and Huberman, 1994). The semi-structured interviews, which lasted one hour on average, were recorded. In two cases interviews were conducted on the phone. In one case the interview protocol was emailed to the participant. Non participant observations were also conducted on each practice’s floor at employees’ cubicles and offices. Observations lasted two hours on average. Data were also collected from private and public documents, i.e. the organization’s official web-site, the organization’s Intranet, the Practices’ hard drive folders, and one practice’s Microsoft SharePointw. 3. Data analysis The secondary researcher transcribed and coded the interviews with the help of Atlas.tiw, a qualitative data analysis software package. A “code-start” list of key words was developed. It followed an in-vivo process by adding words and expressions used repeatedly by participants. We used member checks (Lincoln and Guba, 1985;

Stake, 1995), peer debriefings (Creswell, 2003), and triangulation methods (Creswell, 1998, 2003; Stake, 1995, 2000; Yin, 2003) to cross-check data consistencies (Patton, 2002). This enhanced the accuracy of data analysis and improved the credibility of the study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The analysis processes produced detailed descriptions about the use of information technology repositories in employees’ day-to-day work and barriers to knowledge processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. 4. Findings In these paragraphs we present findings with respect to individual interviews, observations, and document analysis. We discuss barriers to effective use of information technology repositories and potential solutions to those barriers. We also identify factors that are likely to influence knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. Furthermore, we discuss the relationship between the introduction of standard procedures to update information technology repositories and learning processes. 4.1 Effective use of information technology repositories When asked about barriers to effective use of information technology repositories participants came up with several problems connected to where to find knowledge. Three factors were likely to influence the search process to find and retrieve knowledge: (1) The lack of a single place to store and retrieve knowledge, since sometimes knowledge was split in several locations and thus difficult to find. (2) The complexity to identify useful knowledge since it was hidden behind cryptic filenames or folders. (3) The lack of motivation of employees to make knowledge available to others; this in turn made information technology repositories not up-to-date. Participants pointed out the importance to have a single centralized information technology repository to store knowledge. Indeed, the duplication of information was seen as one of the major concerns: “we still have to use our own structure [the hard drive] and you might split up some of your stuff on the hard drive and some of your stuff on the network and things get lost, not sure where one thing is in, that’s our major concern” because “we don’t want to duplicate information”. The impossibility to identify useful knowledge and the lack of motivation to transfer knowledge to other employees were other two identified barriers to KM processes. Potential solutions to those problems were: the introduction of organizational rules and standard procedures to use to update information technology repositories – including a webmaster to monitor those tools – and the development of an organizational culture to transfer and share knowledge among employees. Three events were identified: (1) Before. employees have to be trained to learn how to both use and update the information technology repositories (WHY). Managers have to support an organizational culture where employees are encouraged to accomplish such steps, avoiding the inconsistency of repositories and contributing to the use of


VINE 37,4

444

them (WHO): “it’s a cultural thing. You can have all the tools that you want but if there is not a culture that uses these tools . . . if you are not going to find the value, you are not going to use it . . . ”. (2) During. Employees have to be willing to implement standards procedures/templates when updating the repositories. A webmaster in charge of the maintenance of information technology repositories could ensure that standards and procedures are applied by all employees “. . . what we actually were doing is . . . there is a team of the three of us for monitoring the use of this new tool. What people are doing and not doing. Are they properly using it or not properly using it? What we would do is just pick up the phone and say or send an email to somebody and say ‘Hey we saw that you posted something in there; however you did not do it in a proper way. It would be helpful if you provided such and such further information about that knowledge and put it into the repository’” (HOW/WHO). (3) After. Employees have to be willing to always update the repository when new knowledge is introduced (WHO). A participant claimed: “. . . people need to know how to use it, the technology, and they can be lazy about learning how to use it. They’ll share pieces of knowledge, you will find a lot of time in the repository, somebody will post something in it and they will establish a file name for it, but the file name means nothing to anybody else except them . . . you have to actually put some discipline and structure around how things get shared and in many ways force people to provide certain types of information or meta-data in order for it to be useful for other people and searchable and easily accessible for others searching for it”. The willingness to update information technology repositories when new knowledge was introduced into the practice depended on the personal attitude of employees which in turn was affected by the culture of the organization: People just go about doing their work in an isolated way traditionally and they don’t think about the fact that what they have in their head and what they have in their laptop would be valuable for somebody else and also sometimes they only . . . tend to. . .they are not proactive in sharing (Figure 1).

Further, when overload of knowledge was present, a “distillation strategy” could be introduced into the Practice to select useful knowledge according to specified categories: We plan to conduct a process called “distillation”, where we’ll go into the video, into the transcript, we’ll highlight the important pieces of what we call “knowledge nuggets” (actionable knowledge and key learning), and categorize them and organize them into themes and categories of knowledge nuggets in such ways that make them more accessible to others. We will do that and the knowledge will be made explicit on the shared space where people within the Practice will know about it and know where to find it for future reference . . .

4.2 Knowledge management processes, barriers and potential solutions Two factors were likely to influence knowledge storage and retrieval: the level of accessible codified knowledge and the level of implemented rules to use to make


Figure 1. Effective use of information technology repositories

information technology repositories more effective. From the combination of those two factors, four barriers affecting the use of information technology repositories emerged: fragmentation, overload, de-contextualization, and knowledge transfer acceptance. Several strategies could be implemented to avoid such barriers. Those strategies were: . Fragmentation. Introducing a centralized repository, to avoid the division of knowledge that is split in several locations thus difficult to find and retrieve; . Overload. Introducing a distillation strategy, when an excess of knowledge is present; . De-contextualization. Introducing new standard procedures to use to update the repository. A webmaster could also be in charge of monitoring the updating process. This is especially useful when there is an overload of accessible knowledge and standard procedures are not working out; and . Knowledge transfer acceptance. Developing a culture to motivate employees to make knowledge accessible to others. Barriers to knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval and potential solutions to those barriers are shown in Figure 2. It is a variation of the knowledge retrieval matrix developed by Gammelgaard and Ritter (2005). 4.3 Standard procedures and learning processes Another result that came up from data analysis regarded the relationship between the introduction of standard procedures to update repositories and individual learning processes. Three learning processes were identified: learning by training self-learning, and learning from others. Employees were affected by the effectiveness of the information technology repository that in turn had an influence on individual learning.

VINE 37,4

446

Figure 2. Barriers to knowledge management processes and possible solutions

When information technology repositories worked, the learning process implied two complementary, yet different steps: codification and de-codification/interpretation processes. Codification meant to apply rules and standard procedures to correctly update the repository. It was usually learned through training. This process attempted to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge was possessed by each employee. It had to be turned into explicit knowledge to make it available to others from throughout the information technology repository. A result that came up from data analysis was that codification depended on the desire to help others. A participant claimed: . . . what we all are now thinking about is: ‘Can I get what I need – and can I get what I need faster?’ or is it also ‘Can I help other people with what they need?’ and then people forget that sometimes.

De-codification/interpretation depended on the desire to learn and thus was seen as a “learning by myself process”. In the codification/interpretation process, the explicit knowledge stored in the repository had to be interpreted by employees to become tacit knowledge in order to use it. A participant reported that: . . . well you have something which has been written down but then you have judges, interpreting them, so I would say tacit interpretation of explicit rules about the working . . . .

The process of codification was associated with knowledge storage while the process of de-codification/interpretation was associated with knowledge retrieval. Knowledge storage and retrieval were both considered as knowledge management processes. When information technology repositories did not work, personal interactions were usually utilized. In this case, individual learning was seen as an interactive process because employees had to learn from others in order to get the knowledge they needed.

An informant claimed: Generally it depends on the nature of what I am looking for, if I am looking for a fact or a piece of information and I have a general idea what to look for, I can just look for them in the network. If it is a process question, where I might be able to find, I don’t have a good idea where to look for, then it’s better to get that from a person.

The connection between knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval and learning from information technology repositories is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 summarizes relationships among types of individual learning processes, knowledge management processes and effectiveness of information technology repositories.


5. Conclusion and implications for future research This case study analysis (Yin, 2003) showed three key findings. First, our research illustrated which factors were likely to influence the search process to find and retrieve knowledge: the lack of a single place to store and retrieve knowledge; the impossibility to identify useful knowledge due to lack of rules and standard procedures to use to codify it; and the lack of motivation to share knowledge. Findings indicated that employees used integrative information technology repositories (Zack, 1999), i.e. structured repositories to store and retrieve knowledge, and that knowledge was usually stored on a single computer-based system (Olivera, 1999). These findings suggested that the introduction of organizational rules and standard procedures to use to correctly update information technology repositories – including a webmaster to monitor the process – , the development of an organizational culture to share knowledge, and the introduction of a single centralized repository to store knowledge might contribute to make information technology repositories work out.

Figure 3. The connection between KM processes and learning from information technology repositories

VINE 37,4

448

Second, the case study analysis identified three events connected to the process of storage: a first event connected to training: employees should be trained to learn how to use and update information technology repositories; a second event connected to the updating process when standard procedures should be applied to update such repositories; and a last event connected to the introduction of new knowledge into the practice: employees should be willing to always update the repository. These events suggested that organizational culture, personal commitment, and standard procedures should be introduced to increase the effectiveness of information technology repositories. Our study provided insights on potential ways to make information technology repositories more effective. When combined with the findings of Orlikowski (1992), the results of this study confirmed that the decision to not update the system was partially explained by the lack of motivation to be held accountable for posted contributions. Another explanation might be the absence of external rewards (Goodman and Darr, 1998). Third, our research illustrated the relationship between knowledge management processes and learning. Learning from information technology repositories implied two complementary, yet different steps: codification and de-codification/interpretation. Participants confirmed the importance to be trained to correctly use and update information technology repositories and pointed out the desire to learn as one of the factors influencing the retrieval process in the de-codification/interpretation process. Participants also claimed that when information technology repositories did not work out, personal interactions were used to gather knowledge. This is congruent with the large body of literature on intellectual capital (Brown and Duguid, 1998; Elkjaer, 2003) and social networks (Cross and Sproull, 2004): A great deal of hope (and money) is thus being placed on the value of Intranets. Intranets are indeed valuable, but social knowledge suggests that there is more to consider both with regards to search and retrieval (Brown and Duguid, 1998, p. 98).

This is also congruent with the work of Gammelgaard and Ritter (2005) though it makes a further contribution about the de-codification/interpretation strategy connected to ICT recognizing the need to use personal interactions to retrieve knowledge when information technology does not work. These findings make contributions to the practice. This research demonstrated the need for managers to recognize the influence of leadership on knowledge management processes, e.g. knowledge sharing and storage. Managers wanting to make an impact on an organization should focus on strengthening or positively modifying the attitude of employees to share and transfer knowledge, making their own knowledge accessible to others. Another implication is that when an organization wants to make information technology repositories more effective, rules and templates should be implemented to teach employees how to convert their own tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to make it available to others. This study had some limitations. First this study had limitations connected to empirical generalizability because it is a single case study research. Second, this study focused only on two knowledge management processes, i.e. knowledge storage and retrieval. Third, this study collected data through individual interviews at the

consultant level. It did not focus on other hierarchical levels which might have given different perspective or results. Future research should be conducted in other organizational settings to determine if similar factors influence the processes of knowledge storage and retrieval from information technology repositories. Does the culture of the organization affect the knowledge that is stored into information technology repositories? Do rules and standard procedures improve the updating of the repository? Another potential area for research is the effectiveness of information technology repositories. Future studies should investigate the extent to which more effective information technology repositories might influence the employees’ preferences regarding knowledge retrieval. It was found (Mariano and Casey, 2007) that employees consistently sought direct contact with other employees as their primary way to access new knowledge when information technology repositories did not work out. How would effective information technology repositories influence that attitude? How could these knowledge repositories be changed to make them more accessible? Research could provide answers to better understand the relationship between knowledge management processes and the use of information technology repositories. References Alavi, M. and Tiwana, A. (2003), “Knowledge management: the information technology dimension”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 104-21. Anand, V., Manz, C.C. and Glick, W.H. (1998), “An organizational memory approach to information management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 796-809. Argote, L., Beckman, S.L. and Epple, D. (1990), “The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings”, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 140-54. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1998), “Organizing knowledge”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 90-111. Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1996), “The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of weak ties for technical advice”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119-35. Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cross, R. and Sproull, L. (2004), “More than an answer: information relationships for actionable knowledge”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 446-62. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. (2000), “Organizational learning: debates past, present and future”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 783-96. Elkjaer, B. (2003), “Social learning theory: learning as participation in social processes”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 38-53. Gammelgaard, J. and Ritter, T. (2005), “The knowledge retrieval matrix: codification and personification as separate strategies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 133-43. Gioia, D.A. and Poole, P.P. (1984), “Script in organizational behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 449-59.


VINE 37,4

450

Goetz, J.P. and LeCompte, M.D. (1984), Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, Academic Press, New York, NY. Goodman, P.S. and Darr, E.D. (1998), “Computer-aided systems and communities: mechanisms for organizational learning in distributed environment”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 417-40. Hansen, M. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 83-111. Hayes, N. and Walsham, G. (2003), “Knowledge sharing and ICTs: a relational perspective”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 54-77. Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Mariano, S. and Casey, A. (2007), “The process of knowledge retrieval: a case study of an american high technology research, engineering and consulting company”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 314-30. Merriam, S.B. (1988), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Merriam, S.B. (2001), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Olivera, F. (1999), “Memory systems in organizations”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA. Olivera, F. (2000), “Memory systems in organizations: an empirical investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage and access”, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 811-32. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation”, The Information Society, Vol. 9, pp. 237-50. Orlikowski, W.J. (1996), “Improving organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 63-92. Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Smith, K.A., Vasudevan, S.P. and Tanniru, M.R. (1996), “Organization learning and resource-based theory: an integrative model”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 41-51. Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Stake, R.E. (2000), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 435-54. Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V. (1995), “Actualizing organizational memory with information systems”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 85-117. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zack, M.H. (1999), “Managing codified knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 45-58.

About the authors Massimo Franco is Professor of Organization and Human Resources Management at University of Molise. He serves as the Chairman of the Business Management Studies within the Undergraduate and Graduate Programs. He is also Associate Director of the Department of Economics, Management and Social Sciences (SEGeS) of the University of Molise and a member of the Evaluation Board of the University of Sannio-Benevento. He teaches courses on organizational studies, organizational behaviour and team dynamics. His research interests and publications focus on new forms of organizations, team-based organizations, teamwork and teambuilding, human resource management and competences. Massimo Franco is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Stefania Mariano received her PhD in Organizational Management and HRD from Molise University in 2006 and her MA with honours in Business Management from Molise University in 2002. She was visiting scholar at the Department of Management Science of the George Washington University (USA) and visiting researcher at IKI – Institute of Knowledge and Innovation at GWU (USA). She was associated as an intern with the KM practice of SAIC (McLean, Virginia, USA) and worked in the Department of HR of M. Demajo Group (Malta). She has a consolidated experience in national and international research projects. She taught classes in Strategic Management, Organizational Management, HRD, leadership and KM. Her research interests are: knowledge management and organizational learning, organizational memory, inter-firm relationships and coo-petition, human resource development. Since 2002 she has been working in the Department of Management Science of Molise University.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.