Deventer, J.P. van; Kruger, C.J.; Johnson, R.D.: Delineating knowledge management through lexical analysis : a retrospective (2015)
0.02
0.019734079 = product of:
0.039468158 = sum of:
0.028484445 = weight(_text_:social in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028484445 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.15419927 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
0.010983714 = product of:
0.021967428 = sum of:
0.021967428 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021967428 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Research limitations/implications In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves. Social implications When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be. Originality/value By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
