Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Next Generation of Knowledge Management: Mapping-Based Assessment Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Knowledge Management

Part of the book series: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning ((IAKM,volume 1))

Abstract

After three decades of conceptualisations and investigations, the field of Knowledge Management (KM) can be now considered mature. Concepts such as knowledge, strategic knowledge management, knowledge processes and criteria for assessing knowledge and intellectual capital within organisations are well established and acknowledged. However, despite the large amount of studies dedicated to the subject, which have been accompanied by the development of specialised and focused international research outlets such as, in particular, Knowledge Management Research and Practice (KMRP), Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM) and Journal of Intellectual Capital (JIC), the discipline and practice of knowledge management seems yet not fully integrated into the fabric of organisations. This means that the knowledge management practices are not part of everyday managerial and operational practices. There could be different reason explaining why this is the case. One of the key reasons is the lack of research and practical approaches as well as tools supporting managers to fully disclose and assess the value and benefits of KM. Therefore, it is our perspective that the next generation of KM has to focus the attention on the development of assessment models and particularly on the development of mapping-based methodologies and tools to explain and disentangle how KM drive value creation for organisations. In this light this chapter provides a contribution to the definition of new KM models specifically aimed to a better understanding of KM outcomes and value. Based on some previous works of the authors, the chapter analyses how to elicit the mechanisms of conversion of knowledge resources into value through the use of visual techniques and presents an AHP based mapping model that allows to identify the knowledge asset value drivers on which management attention should be focused as well as to highlight and assess the network of relationships between and among knowledge assets, and between knowledge assets and organisational performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organisational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2006). Show them the money: Using mind mapping in the introductory finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 32, 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T. (1995). The MindMap. London: BBC books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2005). Knowledge asset value spiral. Knowledge and Process Management Journal, 13(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2007a). Knowledge asset value creation map – Assessing knowledge asset value drivers using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(3), 814–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2007b). Exploring intellectual capital concept in strategic management research. In L. Joia (Ed.), Strategies for information technology and intellectual capital: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 10–28). London: Idea Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, D., & Schiuma, G. (2009). Applying the analytic network process to disclose knowledge assets value creation dynamics. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 7687–7694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, D., Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. (2004). The knowledge value chain: How intellectual capital impacts business performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(6–7), 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationships between intangible organisational elements and organisational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1257–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley, B. J. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona. Available from http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-060.pdf

  • Daum, J. H. (2002). Intangible assets and value creation. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brucker, K., Alain Verbeke, A., & Macharis, C. (2004). The applicability of multicriteria-analysis to the evaluation of intelligent transport systems (ITS). Research in Transportation Economics, 8, 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fathian, M., Sotoudehriazi, M., Akhavan, P., & AliAmin, M. (2008). How to assess knowledge management: Developing a quantitative model. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 6(1), 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Effects of social capital and power on surviving transformational change: The case of initial public offering. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process: An exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal [Special Issue], 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, L.-C., & Wang, C.-H. (2012). Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: The mediating role of dynamic capability. British Journal of Management, 23(2), 179–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3), 413–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps – Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1989). Display based problem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 319–341). Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., & Daum, J. H. (2004). The dominance of intangible assets: Consequences for enterprise management and corporate reporting. Measuring Business Excellence – The Journal of Business Performance Management, 8(1), 6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, J. (2005). Developing metrics for determining knowledge management success: A fuzzy logic approach. Information Systems, VI(2), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist, A., Sillanpää, V., & Carlucci, D. (2009). Intellectual capital management in practice: Assessment of implementation and outcomes. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7(4), 308–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. W. (2004). Demonstrating knowledge value: A broader perspective on metrics. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes, P. (2011). Demand driven supply chain. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, M. E., & Harrison, S. R. (2006). Comparing Riparian revegetation policy options using the analytic hierarchy process. In G. Herath & T. Prato (Eds.), Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: Empirical applications. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. C., & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual capital: Navigating the new business landscape. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos, G., Pike, S., & Fernström, L. (2005). Managing intellectual capital in practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of multiple criteria decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: RSW Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A, Mathematics, 102(2), 251–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 45, 185–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G. (2009). The managerial foundations of knowledge assets dynamics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7, 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G., Lerro, A., & Carlucci, D. (2005). An interfirm perspective on intellectual capital. In B. Marr (Ed.), Perspectives in intellectual capital. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G., Ordonez De Pablos, P., & Spender, J. C. (2007). Intellectual capital and company’s value creation dynamics. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 331–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J., & Waid, C. C. (1982). An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive value models. Management Science, 28, 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. The Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiig, K. M. (1993). Knowledge management foundations: Thinking about thinking – How people and organizations create, represent, and use knowledge. Arlington: Schema Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1992). The power of maps. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. L., & Chen, Y. C. (2005). Empowering analytic hierarchy process by habitual domain concepts. In Proceedings of the 8th ISAHP, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process. A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16, 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Insights Hub, University of the Arts London, London, UK

    Giovanni Schiuma

  2. Center for Value Management, DICEM, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Daniela Carlucci

Authors
  1. Giovanni Schiuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Carlucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Schiuma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Vincenza, Italy

    Ettore Bolisani

  2. International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Suleyman Sah University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Meliha Handzic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schiuma, G., Carlucci, D. (2015). The Next Generation of Knowledge Management: Mapping-Based Assessment Models. In: Bolisani, E., Handzic, M. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09501-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation