Journal of Systems and Information Technology

A knowledge management approach to resolving the crises in the information systems

discipline
Michael Kyobe

Article information:

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Michael Kyobe, (2010),"A knowledge management approach to resolving the crises in the information
systems discipline", Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 161 - 173
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13287261011042949
Downloaded on: 22 April 2015, At: 06:37 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 54 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 699 times since 2010*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 226873 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1328-7265.htm

A knowledge management
approach to resolving the
crises in the information
systems discipline

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
161

Michael Kyobe
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The information system (IS) discipline and IS departments in universities are facing
major challenges which threaten their survival. Knowledge management strategies have been used in
various other fields to solve crisis situations and this paper contends that similar approaches could be
adopted to address the crises in the discipline of IS. The purpose of this paper is to present a multitheoretical model that can be used to identify knowledge transfer impediments contributing to the
crises in the IS discipline in a university.
Design/methodology/approach Literature on crisis management and crises in the IS discipline
was reviewed. This revealed that many crises are caused by lack of appropriate knowledge
development and sharing in research and education. Knowledge management research was then
reviewed and synthesized to create a comprehensive framework for identifying impediments to
knowledge transfer in a university setting.
Findings The findings of the literature review indicates that lack of knowledge management and
sharing is one main contributor to the crises in IS discipline. The model developed in the present
study will only be tested in the next phase of this research.
Practical implications IS departments can use this framework to identify the impediments to
knowledge sharing contributing to crises in research and teaching.
Originality/value This paper adopts an approach used in other disastrous situations to resolve
the crises in the IS discipline. It is established in literature that most crises arise due to the lack of
proper knowledge management. A framework to examine knowledge transfer impediments in IS
discipline is therefore proposed. Two theoretical perspectives to knowledge transfer (i.e. the
epistemological and ontological) are combined whereby impediments to tacit and explicit knowledge
transfer in the areas of research and teaching, and at various social interaction levels (i.e. individual,
group, organizational and inter-organizational levels) can be examined. This provides a more
comprehensive analysis of the crisis situation and facilitates the development of holistic knowledgebased solutions needed to respond to the crises. Departments can use the framework to identify
critical issues requiring urgent attention or specific needs of individuals, groups, etc.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge transfer, Modelling, Information systems
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In recent times, universities are experiencing increasing pressure to changes in various
areas of their operations. Businesses are increasingly looking for graduates with
broader knowledge and practical skills, subsidy to universities is reduced, students
demand more flexible times and technological advances are making possible more
flexible and innovative learning opportunities. Many researchers and practitioners
recommend that these institutions should consider moving away from traditional
cognitive skill training to more inter-discipline, student-centred, knowledge-based
training underpinned by technology (Reid, 1999).
While departments like information systems (IS) are expected to make great
contribution in this direction and it is indeed possible to identify a number of areas where

Journal of Systems and Information

Technology
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2010
pp. 161-173
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1328-7265
DOI 10.1108/13287261011042949

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

162

such contribution has been significant (e.g. knowledge management, IT governance, IT

management, e-business and e-government), student enrolment in IS has dropped over
the years, classroom attendance continue to decline and the contribution of the IS
discipline is still being questioned (Bakshi and Krishna, 2007; Cloete, 2009). While some
researchers in early 2000s thought that the talk of crisis was alarmist and that the decline
in student numbers had everything to do with the dot.com effect (Hirschheim and Klein,
2003), this crisis still exists many years after the dot.com incident.
Studies in the field of crisis management and organization decline confirm however
that crises can be turned around by adopting effective knowledge management
strategies (Earl, 2001; Simon and Pauchant, 2000). The researcher contends that similar
approaches should be adopted to resolve the crises in the IS discipline. This study aims
to develop a model for examining knowledge transfer impediments contributing to the
IS crises in universities.
In the following sections, the crises in IS are discussed. This is followed by a review
of knowledge management and transfer literature. This literature is then synthesized
to develop a multi-theoretical model departments can use to examine knowledge
transfer impediments. This model is presented at the end of this paper.
Literature review
Crises in information system
A crisis is defined in this paper as an abnormal situation which presents an
organization with extraordinary risks and sometimes opportunities (Shaluf et al., 2003;
Stranks, 1994). Crises in general have been categorized in many different ways, e.g.
community and non-community types, technological and non-technological types,
internal and external types (Shaluf et al., 2003).
The crises in IS can be categorized as both internal and external in nature. The main
crisis issues debated in IS literature centre around IS discipline, IS research and
education. Critics have for a number of years questioned the distinctiveness, coherence
and viability of the IS discipline. Many argue that IS theories, concepts and research
methodologies lack coherence and that there is need for consolidation of IS knowledge
(Hirschheim and Klein, 2003). Other researchers have argued that IS will not achieve
legitimacy by the rigor of its methods or theoretical base but also by focusing on the
practical needs of professionals, students and the community (Moody and Bowles,
2000). Moody and Bowles (2000) argue that IS in its nature is an applied discipline like
medicine therefore it should be making improvements in both practice and knowledge.
Academics in IS are also grappling with issues relating to education. For instance,
the undergraduate enrolment has declined over the past years and fewer students
attend lectures (Cloete, 2009; Bacon and Fitzgerald, 2001). Bacon and Fitzgerald (2001)
allege that MBA students taking IS courses face difficulties in understanding what the
general subject of IS is about. They argue that the names and acronyms used for the
fields (e.g. MIS, IM, IRM, RITM, IS, IT, TBIT, ICT and IST) make it difficult for those
not fully involved in IS to understand. They state that despite various IS models in
existence, the underlying frameworks portraying a broader picture of the subject are
lacking. Malhotra (2003) also considers the education crisis to be of great concern and
attributes this to the failure of some IS and IRM faculty to keep pace with the changes
in the field. Hemingway and Gough (2000) attribute the present crises to the changes
in teaching methods implemented to accommodate the changing staff-student ratio.
These, they argue, have affected small group intellectual dialogues involving staff and
students or students and their peers.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Moody and Bowles (2000), point out that the disconnection between research
and practice is mainly due to lack of knowledge transfer between IS research and
professional communities. Malhotra (2003) on the other hand puts the blame on the
practitioners for failing to utilize the knowledge and existing IS research.
The discussion above indicates that lack of appropriate knowledge development
and sharing in research and education are major contributors to the present challenges
facing the IS discipline and departments.
Knowledge management and its role in crisis management
Knowledge. Knowledge is an abstract notion and there are two opposing views on how
it is generated. One shows that knowledge stems from data, and information (Bierly
et al., 2000), and the other suggests that data and information come from knowledge
(Braganza, 2004). Proponents of the former, argue that data (raw facts without
meaning) is acquired first, then processed to produce information (data endowed with
relevance), which later becomes knowledge (justified belief that makes a person to
take effective action). Proponents of the latter argue that knowledge has always been
available and as such it is used to generate information and data. Alavi and Leaidner
(2001, p. 109) describe knowledge as information possessed in the mind of individuals:
it is personal information related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas,
observation and judgment. This definition is adopted in the present study.
Types of knowledge. Nonaka and Konno (1998) identified two types of knowledge:
tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is what the knower knows, which is derived from
experience and embodies beliefs and values (Marwick, 2001, p. 814). According to Nonaka
and Konno (1998), this knowledge can be technical or cognitive. The former encompasses
informal personal skills and craft often referred to as know-how and the latter consist of
beliefs, values, mental models and ideals which are deeply ingrained in human beings
and are often unnoticed or taken for granted. Explicit knowledge on the other hand is that
knowledge held formally in the form of reports, equations, formulae and specifications. It
is easily transmitted between individuals and teams (Gladstone, 2000).
The knowledge management cycle. Internal and external pressures have made it
imperative for many organizations today to manage their knowledge resources. There
are varying views on how knowledge should be managed hence the different
definitions of the term knowledge management.
Silver and Shakshuki (2002) identified two knowledge management perspectives:
the technology-centred perspective and the people-centred perspective. They state that
the latter is of IT enthusiasts with backgrounds in IT, Computer science, data
communication and data analysis. For these people knowledge is similar to objects that
can be encoded, stored, transmitted and processed by IT systems. This group therefore
consider IT solutions to be crucial in providing answers to knowledge management
challenges. The people-centred perspective is held by organizational theorists with
background in psychology, human development, cognition, organizational behaviour,
group dynamics and sociology. These people believe in the development of human
intellect, people, organization, management skills as key to organizational success.
They consider the transfer of knowledge within the organization and also between its
external partners to be one main objective of knowledge management.
Silver and Shakshuki (2002, p. 255) argue however that both perspectives are
important. They maintain that knowledge management is a people-centred philosophy
that necessarily involves and will promote the use of information technologies. Their
model of the knowledge management cycle therefore consists of the following steps:

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
163

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

164

acquisition of data and information from the environment, storage of this information,
processing of the information using human brain or technologies, communication of
information and consolidation of knowledge. They state that knowledge consolidation
at the end of one iteration through the knowledge management cycle provides new
information that can be used in yet another iteration.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also provide a fundamental model of the knowledge
management process. This mainly focuses on the process of transforming tacit
knowledge into explicit knowledge and back again as the basis for individual, group,
and organizational innovation and learning. This model consists of four stages:
First stage: socialization (tacit-to-tacit). This is the conversion of tacit to tacit
knowledge through observation, imitation and practice (for instance, conversion of routine
knowledge to experiential knowledge). Experiential knowledge comprises the judgment,
know-how and commitment of individuals acquired through hands-on experience shared
with colleagues, business partners or team members. Experiential tacit knowledge is
developed slowly and unpredictably through face-to-face interaction. Managers can
accelerate the accumulation of experiential knowledge by moving between production
sites, visiting suppliers and customers, and interacting with competitors. In this stage,
knowledge sharing is often done without ever producing explicit knowledge. To be most
effective, this process should take place between people with a common culture.
Second stage: externalization (tacit-to-explicit). This is the process of articulating tacit
knowledge (what we know) and transforming it into explicit form. Experienced people
can articulate their tacit knowledge by use of words, metaphors, analogies, concepts and
models. During this process, people share beliefs and learn how to better articulate their
thinking, through instantaneous feedback and simultaneous exchange of ideas. To be
most effective, the sessions should be fairly informal (freewheeling style).
Third stage: combination (explicit-to-explicit). This is the process of combining or
reconfiguring bodies of existing explicit knowledge (e.g. images, frameworks, etc.),
by sorting, adding, combining or categorizing the knowledge in order to generate
new explicit (systemic) knowledge. Systemic knowledge may comprise of product
specifications, procedure manuals, operational plans, budgets, patents and licenses).
Reconfiguration makes existing explicit knowledge amenable to being captured,
stored, accessed and disseminated through IT-supported knowledge repositories. This
is the area where information technology is most helpful, because such explicit
knowledge can be conveyed in documents, emails, databases, as well as through
meetings and briefings. Combination allows knowledge transfer among groups across
organizations (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Fourth stage: internalization (explicit-to-tacit). This is the process of understanding,
absorbing, digesting, organizing what one has learnt (explicit knowledge) into his/her
own mental model (tacit knowledge). For instance, individuals can acquire explicit
knowledge through reading articles. The reading process (the acquisition of explicit
knowledge) triggers individuals to conceptualize what they read through blending
with their past experience as a means of creating new insight. This process involves
additions to explicit knowledge (e.g. principles, methodologies) to form new tacit
knowledge (e.g. own images, mental model). Internalization is largely experiential. It
involves experimenting in various ways (e.g. through real life experience, simulation,
prototyping, piloting), in order to actualize concepts and methods.
One important aspect of knowledge management not emphasized in the literature
above is the need to structure and link the knowledge management effort to the
strategic imperatives of the organization. In other words, this process should be

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

directed by the strategic goals of the organization. With this in mind, the value of
knowledge and the capabilities that exist to complete this process can be identified and
measured.
The role of knowledge management in crisis management
The importance of effective knowledge management in crisis management has been
shown in many previous studies. Wang and Belardo (2005) contend that crises could be
prevented or their impact minimized if knowledge of causal and influencing factors were
known and better managed. Lennon and Maurer (2001) argue that because there is lack
of knowledge of what is needed, where and when, devastating conditions are often
not resolved promptly. They argue further that knowledge management systems can
provide the right information in an efficient way to the decision makers. Knowledge
management strategies such as involvement, working collectively, education and
simulation can be used to develop learning potential necessary for crisis management.
Li and Wang (2009) present a crisis as a life process, from birth to growth, maturity
and death. They show that during each of these stages, appropriate knowledge is
necessary to deal with the situation. For instance, before the crisis bursts out, it is
necessary for management to acquire and store knowledge. This could be obtained
from internal and external sources (i.e. symptom information, history information on
crisis, intervention costs and preparedness information). During the crisis stage, there
is panic, negative comments and bad publicity. Management should possess crisis
knowledge and crisis expert systems. They can make use of forums, groupware and
other mechanisms to arrest the situation. After the crisis, professional knowledge is
needed to evaluate the situation and performance and also plan ahead. At this stage,
damage information and management information need to be collected. Li and Wang
(2009) maintain that crisis management based on knowledge reduces the uncertainties.
Wang (2008) and Senge (1990) show that learning play a key role in dealing with
organizational challenges. Learning and development of intellectual capital are often
enhanced through knowledge management. Knowledge transfer is one process of
knowledge management that ensures continuous learning (Shin et al., 2001). It is also
revealed in the previous sections that the success of an organization in handling
crises depends very much on their ability to identify the holders of knowledge and
disseminate that knowledge to the relevant people in time. Wang (2008) claims that
organizations fail to learn from crises because many are reluctant to transfer or share
knowledge and crisis experiences with others. He observed that limited studies have
been conducted to investigate the relationship between knowledge transfer and
organizational crises and that the lack of research in this area prevents the effective
utilization of knowledge in organization. The present study develops a model that can
be used to identify knowledge transfer impediments during IS crises and also assist in
determining how knowledge transfer practices may be affected by the behaviours of
academics in IS departments.
Knowledge transfer
The transfer and use of knowledge is increasingly becoming a critical factor in
many organizations. Knowledge transfer is the process through which one unit (e.g.
individual, group or division) is affected by the experience of another (Argote, 1999).
While some earlier studies have represented knowledge transfer as a simple and static
process (Nissen, 2002), recent research shows that it is a dynamic and problematic
process (Tang et al., 2008; Lockett et al., 2008).

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
165

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

166

Research in knowledge transfer can be traced back to the early as 1960s (1961-1963)
when merchandise knowledge from the USA was compiled in card books MD Notes,
and disseminated to sellers in Japan by researchers at Takashinaya department store
(Kenshi, 2006). Since then, there have been studies on transfers at individual (e.g.
between experts and novice), group (e.g. on transfer impediments) and organizational
level (e.g. knowledge acquisitions, speed of knowledge transfer and organizational
learning) Kwan and Cheung (2006).
Knowledge transfer within the higher education sector has generally been ignored
(Wright, 2004; Ruth et al., 1999) and the situation regarding knowledge transfer in
developing countries is even of greater concern (Cloete, 2002; Van Zyl et al., 2007).
Cloete (2002) reports that there was a down trend in knowledge production in South
Africa between 1994 and 2001, in international competitive terms. Van Zyl et al. (2007)
argue that academics need to increase the relevance of their research to industry
and society and concluded that future research should focus more on understanding
knowledge transfer barriers, knowledge transfer mechanisms and collaborative
relationships with the industry in order to increase industry competitiveness and
economic development.
Knowledge transfer assumptions
Contemporary models of knowledge and knowledge transfer have been based mainly
on the epistemological and ontological notions (Gebert et al., 2003). Epistemological
models focus on the nature of knowledge independent of its context. Knowledge is
perceived as an entity with definable characteristics, and limited regard is given to the
interconnections between knowledge entities and their environment. Epistemological
modellers recognize the difficulties in knowledge articulation and on this basis have
provided two main types of knowledge. Knowledge that can easily be articulated is
referred to as explicit knowledge while that which is difficult to communicate is
labelled tacit knowledge.
Ontological models focus on the relationship between knowledge and its
environment or context, independent of its nature (Moteleb and Woodman, 2007). For
instance, the relationships and environmental factors influencing the processes of
knowledge development, dissemination, modification and use (process-oriented model)
and the variables that expedite or hinder the flow of knowledge in social networks (The
agent-oriented model).
Onions and Orange (2002) argue however that favouring one approach over the
other (e.g. an ontological over epistemological) may affect the codification process
especially under situations of ambiguity, intangibility or duality. They therefore
recommend the incorporation of the views of both models to ensure more accurate
capture, storage and utilization of knowledge. Muina et al. (2002) critically examined
the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Nonaka and Konno (1998). They
argue that while this model provides useful insight into the knowledge transformation
processes at an entity level based on the epistemological view, it does not provide
satisfactory explanation of how knowledge can be created between different levels
suggested in the ontological model. They therefore developed an epistemological
and ontological SECI, which integrates the views of the two dimensions. The
epistemological dimension reflects the continual interplay between tacit and explicit
knowledge in which new ideas are created while the ontological dimension reflects the
knowledge development at different levels of social interaction (e.g. individual, group,
organization and inter-organizational levels).

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Knowledge transfer in universities

The significance of examining knowledge transfers in universities from both the
epistemological and ontological dimensions is clearly shown by Phillipss report on
knowledge transfer in Australian universities (DEST, 2006). This report provides a
useful model of the scope of knowledge transfer in a university setting. Phillips
indicates that knowledge flow in universities take places within, and between
academic domains (research, scholarship, learning and teaching) and with the outside
world. It may involve individuals, groups, the organization (university) and other
organizations or individuals external to the university. They further state that such
flow of knowledge may be mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
Knowledge transfer from an individual to a group may take place when a lecturer
teaches a class or a group of students. It may also take place when a researcher
presents findings during a department seminar or when new ideas are introduced to
a social network. Knowledge can also flow from various research groups to form
specialized university (organizational) knowledge. For instance, research groups in
business management may generate knowledge in management, managerial finance
and marketing. The pharmacy research group may generate specialized skills in
pharmaceutical technology while the chemistry research group may generate
knowledge in composts, polymers and related technologies. This group knowledge
becomes the knowledge capital of the department or university (or organizational
knowledge) which can then be transferred to individuals, businesses and other
communities outside of the institutions. Knowledge transfer from the department or
university (organization) to external institutions or communities (inter-organization
level) may take the form of mobility of scientists from the department to the industry,
cooperation between industry and the department in research and development, joint
ventures, sharing of facilities to test innovation and university spin-offs.
Knowledge can also flow in the opposite direction from the environment to the
organization (department or university), from the organization to groups within the
department (university) and from groups to individuals. For instance, the industry
may exert some influence on the curriculum, or skills may be acquired from business,
industry and alumni societies. Groups in the department can also learn from repositories
of knowledge held by the universities and a researcher (individual) can acquire skills
from feedback provided during departmental seminars, review panels or journals.
Knowledge transfer barriers in universities
The barriers to knowledge transfer in a university environment could be many. The
researcher has adopted Szulanskis (1996) approach to outline four categories of these
barriers: characteristics of the knowledge transferred; characteristics of the source;
characteristics of the recipient and characteristics of the organizational context.
Characteristics of the knowledge transferred
Knowledge exists in tacit and explicit form as discussed above. Tacitness of knowledge
has received most attention in literature and the main argument has been that its
personal, context-specific and informal nature makes it difficult to communicate and
transfer. Explicit knowledge on the other hand can be articulated in formal language,
duplicated and stored in databases or libraries. Foray and Hargreaves (2002) explain
why advances in human know-how are spectacular in other sectors like ICTs and
biotechnology than in the education sector. They argue that knowledge development in
the former sectors involves well defined and controlled experimental probes with

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
167

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

168

strong feedback loops. In this case, knowledge can be codified in instructional guides
and documented, thereby making it easier to disseminate. They compare this model
of knowledge development to the one used in a classroom environment where new
knowledge is generated through learning-by-doing. They argue that in this case the
doers have limited opportunities to record process outcomes or hypothesize about the
structure of the processes they may be controlling. Feedback is therefore constrained
and the knowledge developed may not be easily transferable.
Year after year institutions fail to gather useful skills possessed by their members.
Take for instance the skills possessed by a faculty who has led successful curriculum
revision task forces for years, a researcher who has established strong links with
business and external sponsors or an administrator with planning and reporting
skills often called upon to assist with strategic planning. This kind of tacit knowledge
is never shared by other members of the department or group and as observed by
Sherman and Martinoff (2003), is usually not converted into organizational knowledge.
Sometimes however, the knowledge required may already exist in explicit form but due
to syntactic and semantic problems it may not be accessible or comprehensive. One critical
problem in education sectors is the absence of a technical vocabulary like the one used by
doctors or lawyers. This makes codification difficult thereby forcing practitioners to retain
their knowledge in tacit form (Foray and Hargreaves, 2002). Knowledge codification is the
representation of knowledge such that it can be accessed and transferred.
Characteristics of the source of knowledge
This refers to the knowledge level, attitudes, perceptions and techniques employed by
the source of knowledge. Szulanski (1996) identified lack of motivation resulting from
fear of losing ownership, privilege and lack of reward for sharing as impediments to
knowledge transfer. The fear of losing ownership of what one knows discourages
many from sharing fully what they know. According to Dixon (2000), knowledge
providers consider knowledge sharing as an act of generosity. For many, knowledge is
a means of achieving upward organizational mobility, power and recognition (Martin,
1998). Academics have been reluctant to engage in collaborative activities that enhance
relationships, research and cognitive work due to fear of knowledge loss. In fact in
some instances where instructor teams have to work with IT curriculum designers
and technical specialists to share knowledge, it is reported that such collaboration is
perceived to intrude into academicians professional autonomy (Blustain et al., 1999).
Szulanski (1996) also maintains that if the source of knowledge is not seen to be reliable,
trustworthy or knowledgeable, effective transfer may not take place. The level of diversity
of IT skills and experience of the student body are rapidly outstripping those of most
academics. This suggests that the knowledge imparted and to some extent our teaching
methods may not be matching the habits and expectations of todays learners. The
existing continuing explosion of technological change requires academics to continuously
upgrade their technical skills, which unfortunately in some cases is rarely done.
Characteristics of the recipient
The ability to receive knowledge can be influenced by many factors such as lack
of motivation (e.g. feeling of not invented here), lack of absorptive capacity and
knowledge retention (Szulanski, 1996). Organizational theorists see the lack of absorptive
capacity and retention as the most significant barrier to knowledge transfer in
organizations. Absorptive capacity is the ability to recognize the value of new
information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial or practical ends (Cohen and

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Levinthal, 1990). Lack of this capability arises from ignorance, lack of prior knowledge
and in most cases lack of a common language between the provider and recipient of
knowledge. Muller and Cloete (2004) highlight the potential knowledge transfer problems
that could arise from identity and cultural differences in merged tertiary institutions.
They argue that technical and vocational training tends towards development of tacit
knowledge which differs from the discursive forms displayed in traditional universities.
They warn that placing learners with different pedagogic identities in the same learning
environment could lead to confusion and disappointment. While it is anticipated that
such mergers will provide opportunities to apply best practice from one institution to
another, differences in opinion, academic cultures, levels of specialization and lack of
trust may hinder academics ability to effectively share knowledge.
Characteristics of the context
Szulanski (1996) also suggests that knowledge transfer may be influenced by the
organizational context. A fertile context facilitates the development of transfers while a
barren one hinders its gestation and evolution. He also emphasizes the importance
of arduous relationships between units to ensure smooth transfer of knowledge.
Researchers argue that a centralized bureaucratic management style stifles the creation
of new knowledge. They maintain that more flexible and responsive structures are
needed to ensure successful knowledge transfer (Chung, 2001). Flatter structures for
instance have been found to lead to increased levels of knowledge sharing (Hall, 2001).
The nature and state of technical infrastructure used to transfer knowledge can
also impact the transfer process. The technology used in many institutions of higher
education is outdated. Many of these institutions lack resources and human expertise
in IT, are financially constrained to keep up with the ever changing technology and
sometimes have to go through lengthy bureaucratic processes to effect changes (Reid,
1999). In addition, the speed of knowledge transfer is also influenced by the competitive
environment in the organization. Such environment does not exist in many educational
institutions. Competition promotes innovation, creates incentives to produce new
knowledge and forces performance through development of absorption capabilities.
Notwithstanding the above challenges, however, universities have to provide a
fertile ground for knowledge development if they are to survive in the present
environment. Technology and other practices can be used to create such environment
by facilitating faster access to knowledge, allowing flexibility and enabling the
establishment of arduous relationships. The provision of e-libraries, 24-7 reference
desks, on-line chat book advice and information transfer over communication networks
anytime and anywhere are some of the ways by which this could be achieved.
Towards a framework for examining knowledge transfer impediments in universities
While earlier frameworks have mainly focused on specific impediments to transfer
(knowledge characteristics (Kogut and Zander, 1992)); participant characteristics
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990); context in which transfer takes place (ODell and Grayson,
1998), or source and recipient (Gouza, 2006), the author proposes a more holistic model
(see Figure 1) which examines various knowledge transfer impediments across
different domains or social interaction levels in the department or institution. It is
based on the initial work of Muina et al. (2002) and other sources examined in the
previous sections. This framework provides a thorough understanding of the present
crisis areas in the discipline and facilitates the development of holistic knowledgebased solutions needed to respond the crises in departments.

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
169

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

170

Figure 1.
A comprehensive
framework for analysis
of knowledge transfer
impediments in the IS
discipline/department

The model represented in Figure 1 will be tested in the department of IS at a leading

university in South Africa.
Conclusion
This paper presents a multi-theoretical model based on epistemological and ontological
perspectives of knowledge that can be used to identify knowledge transfer
impediments causing crises in the IS discipline in a university. A review of literature
on crisis management indicates that most of crises result from the lack of proper
knowledge management and sharing. This argument appears to hold true for the crises
in the IS discipline. The author argues that if the impediments to knowledge transfer

can be identified across the different domains of the IS departments, appropriate

knowledge-based solutions can be found and the crises.
This framework will be tested in a study to be conducted in the IS department of one
leading university in South Africa.

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline

References
Alavi, M. and Leaidner, D.E. (2002), Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges and
benefits, in Barnes, S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management Systems Theory and Practice,
Thompson Learning, Oxford, pp. 15-32.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Argote, L. (1999), Organisational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge,

Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA.
Bacon, J.C. and Fitzgerald, N. (2001), A systemic framework for the field of information
systems, SIGMIS Database, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 46-67.
Bakshi, S. and Krishna, S. (2007), Crisis in the information systems discipline: a reflection, ACIS
2007 Proceedings, available at: www.acis2007.usq.edu.au/assets/papers/32.pdf (accessed
June 2008).
Bierly, P.E., Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E.W. (2000), Organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618.
Blustain, H., Goldstein, P. and Lozier, G. (1999), Assessing the new competitive landscape, in
Katz and Richard, N. (Eds), Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New
Competition in Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Braganza, A. (2004), Rethinking the datainformationknowledge hierarchy: towards a casebased model, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24, pp. 347-56.
Chung, L.H. (2001), The role of management in knowledge transfer, Third Asian Pacific
Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, 15-17 July, Adelaide.
Cloete, E. (2009), Business students perception of information systems, Proceedings of the
African Digital Scholarship and Curation Conference, 12-14 May, Pretoria.
Cloete, N. (2002), South African higher education and social transformation, Higher Education
Digest Supplement, No. 4, Autumn.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-53.
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2006), Knowledge transfer and
Australian universities and publicly funded research agencies, Report by Phillips, K.P.A.,
March, available at: www.dest.gov.au/NR/exeres/083A2836-974A-4E31-BFE1-B8A2C0
55749C.htm (accessed 4 April 2008).
Dixon, N.M. (2000), Common Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Earl, M. (2001), Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33.
Foray, D. and Hargreaves, D. (2002), The development of knowledge of different sectors: a model
and some hypotheses, unpublished paper, Knowledge Management in Education and
Learning Forum, 18-19 March, Oxford.
Gebert, H., Geib, M., Kolbe, L. and Brenner, W. (2003), Knowledge-enabled customer relationship
management: integrating customer relationship management and knowledge
management concepts, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 107-23.
Gladstone B. (2000), From Know-How to Knowledge: Essential Guide to Understanding and
Implementing Knowledge Management, The Industrial Society, London.

171

JSIT
12,2

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

172

Gouza, A. (2006), Key factors of knowledge transfer within university spin-offs, available at
http://selene.uab.es/dep-economia-empresa/Jornadas/Papers/2006_11/IVJornadas_paper_
Gouza.pdf (accessed 4 April 2007).
Hall, H. (2001), Social exchange for knowledge exchange, Managing Knowledge Conversions
and Critiques, University of Leicester.
Hemingway, C. and Gough, T. (2000), The value of information systems teaching and research
in the knowledge society, Informing Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 167-84, available at: http://
inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n4p167-184.pdf (accessed 14 April 2007).
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (2003), Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the
discipline, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 237-93.
Kenshi, M. (2006), Knowledge transfer in management of department stores: centering on transfer
of buyers manual and MD notes, MMRC Discussion Paper No. 102, available at: http://
merc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mmrc/dp/pdf/MMRC102_2006.pdf (accessed 13 August 2008).
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3, pp. 383-97.
Kwan, M. and Cheung, P. (2006), The knowledge transfer process: from field studies to
technology development, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Lennon, J. and Maurer, H.A. (2001), Can knowledge management help in poverty-stricken countries
and crisis situations, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 327-34.
Li, Z. and Wang, H. (2009), Research on the enterprise crisis management system basic on
knowledge demand, in Yu, F., Zeng, J. and Yue, G. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Web Information Systems and Applications (WISA 2009),
22-24 May, Nanchang.
Lockett, N., Kerr, R. and Robinson, S. (2008), Multiple perspectives on the challenges for knowledge
transfer between higher, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 661-81.
Malhotra, Y. (2003), Measuring national knowledge assets of a nation: knowledge systems for
development, expanding public space for the development of the knowledge society,
United Nations, New York, NY, pp. 68-126, available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/
groups/public/documents/un/unpan011601.pdf (accessed 17 January 2006).
Martin, B. (1998), Tied knowledge: power in higher education, available at: www.uow.edu.au/
arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/tk04.html (accessed 15 March 2005).
Marwick, A.D. (2001), Knowledge management technology, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 814-30.
Moody, D.L. and Bowles, S. (2000), Building links between IS research and professional practice:
improving the relevance and impact of IS research, in Ang, K., Orlikowski, W. and
DeGross (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS,
10-13 December, Brisbane.
Moteleb, A. and Woodman, M. (2007), Towards a knowledge management systems development
method: critique of some relevant theories and methodologies, Journal of Information and
Management (JIKM), Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Muina, F.E.G., de Castro, G.M. and Saez, P.L. (2002), The knowledge creation process: a critical
examination of the SECI model, paper presented at the Third European Conference on
Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), 5-6 April, Athens.
Muller, J. and Cloete, N. (2004), Playing fast and loose with knowledge boundaries, available at:
www.chet.prg.za/papers/ComprehensiveUniversities.pdf (accessed 11 June 2005).
Nissen, M.E. (2002), An extended model of knowledge-flow dynamics, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, pp. 251-66.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, I. (1998), The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge
creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford Press, New York, NY.
ODell, C. and Grayson, C. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of
internal best practices, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.
Onions, P. and Orange, G. (2002), The three Ks: a model for knowledge that supports ontology
and epistemology, 6th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics,
SCI, 14-18 July, Orlando, FL.
Reid, I.A. (1999), Beyond models: developing a university strategy for online instruction,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Ruth, S., Theobald, J. and Frizzell, V. (1999), A university-based approach to the diffusion of
knowledge management concepts and practice, SIGCPR 99, New Orleans, LA, available
at: www.asis.org/SIG/sigkm/ruthandtheobald.pdf (accessed 20 June 2008).
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shaluf, F. Ahmadun and Mat Said, A. (2003), A review of disaster and crisis, Disaster
Prevention and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Sherman, W.S. and Martinoff, J. (2003), Learn from experience a four-step process for
communicating business ethics, available at: http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/031/nellis.html
(accessed 12 January 2005).
Shin, M., Holden, T. and Schmidt, R.A. (2001), From knowledge theory to management practice:
towards an integrated approach, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 335-55.
Silver, D. and Shakshuki, E. (2002), Knowledge management: integrating perspectives, in Kluas,
T. and Herman, M. (Eds), Proceedings of I-KNOW02 the 2nd International Conference on
Knowledge Management, 11-12 July, Graz, Special Issue of J.UCS, pp. 254-59.
Simon, L. and Pauchant, T. (2000), Developing the three levels of learning in crisis management:
a case study of the Hagersville tire fire, Review of Business, Vol. 21 Nos 3/4, pp. 6-11.
Stranks, J. (1994), Human Factors and Safety, Pitman, London.
Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice
within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 27-43.
Tang, F., Mu, J. and MacLachlan, D. (2008), Implication of network size and structure on
organizations knowledge transfer, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 109-1114.
Van Zyl, A., Amadi-Echendu, J.E. and Bothma, T.J. (2007), Nine drivers of knowledge transfer
between universities and industry R&D partners in South Africa, South African Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Wang, J. (2008), Developing organizational learning capacity in crisis management, Advances
in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 425-45.
Wang, W. and Belardo, S. (2005), Strategic integration: a knowledge management approach to crisis
management, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, 3-6 January,
Big Island, HI.
Wright, M. (2004), University spin-out companies perform poorly in bid to create wealth, ESRC
Society Today, available at: www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk (accessed 22 January 2005).
Corresponding author
Michael Kyobe can be contacted at: michael.kyobe@uct.ac.za

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Resolving the
crisis in the
IS discipline
173

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 06:37 22 April 2015 (PT)

1. Marcelo Wendling, Mrian Oliveira, Antonio Carlos Gastaud Maada. 2013. Knowledge sharing barriers in
global teams. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 15:3, 239-253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]