Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 2.3 – What has knowledge management given us so far?

This article is Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.

One of the clearest ways to understand what KM has stood for over the past decades is to examine what it has consistently focused on. Barley, Treem, and Kuhn’s review¹ of two decades² of KM literature does precisely this. Their work offers valuable insight into how KM has been conceptualised, what problems it has aimed to solve, and how knowledge itself has been framed. It also highlights the general, underlying assumptions shaping the field. By tracing KM’s recurring focus areas, we can better see what has been marginalised.

2.3.1 Knowledge management – the concept

To begin with, Barley and colleagues’ analysis reveals a field primarily concerned with improving organisational effectiveness through the strategic use of knowledge. Across the literature, KM is framed as a set of practices and technologies aimed at enhancing efficiency (doing things better and faster), securing competitive advantage (gaining a superior market position through smarter use of knowledge), driving performance improvement (raising individual, team, or organisational output), and enabling value creation (turning knowledge into economic or operational returns). In this context, knowledge is treated as a manageable resource, something to be captured, codified, integrated and/or protected, and finally deployed. Barley and colleagues’ research helps to reveal the narrowness of mainstream KM’s ambitions and thus suggests also where its limits may lie.

Barley and colleagues state that KM (re-)emerged in the 1990s, first and foremost, to help organisations balance their internal knowledge flows in a strategic manner. In an economy increasingly defined by intangible assets, KM positioned itself as a ‘wrangler’ of this elusive resource. The central challenge lay in understanding “how knowledge operates in specific organisational context(s).” KM’s development was closely tied to shifts in socioeconomic conditions, globalisation, and technological advances, all of which amplified the significance of knowledge as an organisational asset. Framed as a “strategic endeavour” by scholars, KM became understood as the managerial problem-solving approach focused on identifying and implementing practices that maximise the value derived from knowledge. This required the optimal balancing of differentiated (specialised) knowledge, which allows for expansion and innovation, and integrated (shared) knowledge, which promotes coordination and efficiency.

Barley and colleagues identify three recurring themes in how scholars conceptualise knowledge itself: its explicitness, its location, and the importance of enactment. The first theme, explicitness, refers to the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge, meaning that it is both “within and beyond individuals.” The second concerns where knowledge resides: within individuals, collectives, or systems, and whether it can move from one to the other and visa versa. The third theme questions whether knowledge is best understood as a static object to be possessed or as a dynamic process enacted in practice. These debates inform the foundational tensions in KM theory, yet, as the authors show, the dominant trend has been to treat knowledge as a possessable, manageable and primarily existing to serve the organisation.

Key motivations for KM include the integration of diverse knowledge forms to enhance organisational effectiveness, the codification of tacit knowledge into explicit forms for broader utility, and the strategic use of knowledge for innovation and competitive advantage.

Early 90s scholarship on KM, such as the knowledge-based view of the firm³, emphasised knowledge as a fundamental driver of organisational capability and performance. Over time, KM evolved into a general managerial practice highlighting the importance of investments in technology, human capital, and processes, the areas that impact the effective management of knowledge flows.

This managerial gaze is largely inward-looking, efficiency-oriented, and aimed at containing knowledge within the organisation. Very little thought is given to more open-ended, plural, and relational dimensions of knowing.

2.3.2 Focus areas of knowledge management

Barley and colleagues identified four broad trajectories through which KM has been theorised and practised: integration, differentiation, transformation, and preservation of knowledge.

These trajectories represent distinct but overlapping ways of framing the purpose of KM, and they coexist within organisational systems rather than functioning as mutually exclusive categories. Figure 3 below summarises their proportional representation within the analysed sample. Based on their research, Barley and colleagues discovered that integration of differentiated knowledge (84,5%) has, by far, been the focus of most interest.

Barley and colleagues identify multiple reasons for the prioritisation of integrational processes. A key factor is the persistent view of tacit knowledge as a barrier to effective KM. Tacit knowledge, being context-specific and often difficult to articulate, is framed as an obstacle that organisations must overcome to harness the full potential of their knowledge resources.

This framing has led to a focus on mechanisms for converting tacit knowledge into explicit forms or facilitating its transfer across boundaries. Additionally, the recombination of existing knowledge has been widely regarded as a critical source of innovation, further reinforcing the emphasis on integration. Barley and colleagues state that the prevailing assumption is that competitive advantage often stems not from the creation of entirely new knowledge, but from the strategic integration of pre-existing knowledge assets.

The research focus on integration of knowledge is also tied to the practical challenges faced by organisations in managing knowledge flows. During the early 90s development of KM, firms struggled to capture, transfer, and embed existing knowledge within organisational systems. These challenges aligned closely with the operational goals of integration, such as streamlining knowledge-sharing processes and improving decisionmaking efficiency, which resonated strongly with both practitioners and scholars. Consequently, integrational processes became synonymous with KM success, sidelining the exploration of other trajectories, such as knowledge differentiation and the maintenance of specialisation.

Barley and colleagues further explain that the bias toward interest in integration is reinforced by its alignment with short-term, measurable performance metrics, which are often prioritised in strategic management studies. The tangible benefits of knowledge integration, such as enhanced productivity and innovation outcomes, have made it an attractive focus for research and organisational practice alike. In contrast, trajectories such as differentiation to differentiation or integration to differentiation are less frequently studied, as their benefits are often indirect, context-dependent, or realised over longer time horizons.

Despite the dominance of integration-focused research, Barley and colleagues’ review underlines the existence of alternative knowledge trajectories that address the dynamics of differentiation and specialisation. These trajectories emphasise the need for organisations to balance integrational efforts with mechanisms that preserve or produce specialised knowledge, recognising that effective KM involves navigating the inherent tensions between integration and differentiation. Barley and colleagues argue that overlooking these alternative processes limits the conceptual and practical scope of KM, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding knowledge dynamics. While their review does not cover all research within the KM field, it does clearly chart the predominant directions and underlying assumptions that have shaped its development.

Undoubtedly, KM will continue to play a central role in the future due to its relevance to a range of new pressing business challenges. KM is essential for managing knowledge across multisite, multilingual, and multicultural contexts. At the same time, leaner organisational structures place growing demands on employees to work smarter and faster, further elevating the importance of effective knowledge practices.

The mobility of the modern workforce has also introduced the persistent risk of corporate amnesia, where the loss of key personnel can disrupt continuity and institutional memory. Rapid technological advancements continue to accelerate connectivity and response times, making timely access to relevant knowledge more critical than ever.

Finally, in an age of rising misinformation and disinformation, KM stands as a vital counterforce⁴, supporting the verification, organisation, and responsible dissemination of knowledge in order to safeguard informed decision-making. If KM’s relevance to the future is certain, should it continue to privilege integrational efficiency above all else, or might its long-term vitality depend on giving greater space to other neglected trajectories of knowledge?

Next part: Section 2.4 – Some recent areas of interest in knowledge management.

Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).

Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.

References and further information: