Knowledge Management Implementation: An Evolutionary Process in Organizations

Abstract

The implementation of knowledge management projects continues to be a challenge for many organizations. A project of such nature involves the introduction of new information technologies, changes in business processes, and often changes in the organizational culture. In this paper, we have studied the implementation of knowledge management initiatives in 11 firms operating in Portugal. Data were mainly collected through semi-structured interviews with top managers. The aim of this research is to analyze the process and factors associated with knowledge management implementation and develop a framework, with different stages, to guide the implementation of knowledge management in organizations. The theoretical and practical contribution to this framework is discussed, as well as the findings in each case study. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge can be perceived as an intangible resource that is used for the attainment of sustainable competitive advantage (Lee and Kim, 2001; Sher and Lee, 2004; Gray and Meister, 2006; Hooff and Huysman, 2009) and its management a critical issue in an organization's performance (Lee and Kim, 2001). Knowledge can be understood as information associated with experience, context, interpretation and the reflection of individuals (Märtensson, 2000; Jarrar, 2002). Organizations can develop individual knowledge through knowledge management initiatives. However, there is not yet a universally accepted definition for knowledge management (Chen and Chen, 2006). In this research, we will consider knowledge management (KM) as “the collection of processes that govern the creation, dissemination, and leveraging of knowledge to fulfill organizational objectives” (Lee and Yang, 2000, p. 784). KM does not occur only inside organizations but also among them. Knowledge can be obtained through employees, competitors, suppliers, partners, and customers (Darroch, 2003).

The lack of a consolidated theoretical basis on KM implementation has been given as one of the reasons why organizations fail in this area (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004). The academic literature approaches this topic from several perspectives. Montequín et al. (2006), for example, present key success factors for KM implementation in small-sized and medium-sized enterprises, whereas Mehta (2008) developed a value creation cycle, with three stages: articulating KM strategic intent, facilitating knowledge flow to enable innovation, and assessing KM value. However, the focus of these two papers is not the development of framework to guide KM implementation in organizations. A framework to guide KM implementation will allow an integrated view of organizational knowledge and point out the initiatives associated with KM (Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004), regarding KM as an evolutionary process (Lin, 2007). According to Wong and Aspinwall (2004, p. 95), a framework for KM implementation is “a structure or a set of guiding principles, which is depicted in such a way as to provide guidance and direction on how to carry out KM in organizations.”

The aim of this paper is to analyze the process and factors associated with KM implementation and provide a framework with different stages to enhance KM implementation. Considering the relevance of KM in organizations, this study can be used by business managers in order to identify their current stage related to KM implementation.

The paper is organized in five sections. In the next section, a literature review on relevant factors of KM implementation is presented. After that, the research design and method is introduced and discussed. Then, we highlight the main findings that emerged from the cases studied. Finally, in the last section, we discuss how these findings could contribute to improve our understanding of KM implementation projects.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION: FACTORS AND STAGES

Relevant factors for the implementation of KM in organizations have been previously identified in the literature (Liebowitz, 1999; Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Lee and Kim, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Montequín et al., 2006; Lin, 2007; Mehta, 2008). Jarrar (2002), for example, presents guidelines based on best practices. Lai and Chu (2002) introduce a framework with several dimensions: influences, activities, and resources for KM implementation. This framework was developed from eight case studies. Wong and Aspinwall (2004) compared eight KM frameworks (Wiig et al., 1997; Gore and Gore, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002) and presented a set of guidelines to be considered in the development of a framework for KM implementation.

Oliveira and Caldeira (2008) presented a literature review about the factors that affect KM implementation. They identified 22 researches about this topic. The factors proposed by Oliveira and Caldeira (2008) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Factors relevant to knowledge management (KM) implementation

Dimensions	Factors	Authors
Source: Adapted from Oliveira and Caldeira (2008)
Content	Explicit knowledge—processes and technologies to contemplate explicit knowledge	Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig et al., 1997; Gore and Gore, 1999; Hansen et al., 1999; Liebowitz, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
	Tacit knowledge—processes and technologies to contemplate tacit knowledge	Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig et al., 1997; Gore and Gore, 1999; Hansen et al., 1999; Liebowitz, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
	Core knowledge—identification of relevant knowledge for business	Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Smith et al., 2006
	Alignment with business objectives—relation between KM objectives and business objectives	Wiig et al., 1997; Gore and Gore, 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Jarrar, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Smith et al., 2006
	Objectives—definition of KM objectives	Gore and Gore, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
	Benefits—definition of expected benefits with KM	Mentzas, 2001; Lin and Tseng, 2005
Internal context	Organizational structure—relation between organizational structure and KM	McCampbell et al., 1999; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004
	Top management support—relation between top managers and KM	Liebowitz, 1999; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Tirpak, 2005; Smith et al., 2006
	Organizational culture—relation between organizational culture and KM	McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Tirpak, 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
External context	Customers—participation of customers in KM	Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Tirpak, 2005
	Suppliers—participation of suppliers in KM	Mentzas, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Tirpak, 2005
	Competitors—participation of competitors in KM	Wiig et al., 1997; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005
	Legislation—influence of legislation in KM	Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Tirpak, 2005
	Partners—participation of partners in KM	Mentzas, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Tirpak, 2005
Process	KM project leadership—type of KM project leadership	Liebowitz, 1999; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Kulkarni et al., 2007
	Rewarding system—type of rewarding system used to guarantee the involvement of people in KM activities	Liebowitz, 1999; Goh, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005
	Time—consideration of necessary time to carry out KM activities	Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Goh, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Smith et al., 2006
	Training—employee's training for the KM	McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005
	Technology—information technology used in KM projects	Liebowitz, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
	Process phases—definition of activities in KM process phases	Gore and Gore, 1999; Liebowitz, 1999; McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Jarrar, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Lin and Tseng, 2005; Shankar and Gupta, 2005; Tirpak, 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Mehta, 2008
	Communication—communication means to inform people in the organization on KM initiatives	McCampbell et al., 1999; Mentzas, 2001; Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002; Goh, 2002; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Mehta, 2008
	Budget—availability of financial resources for KM	Liebowitz, 1999; Ndlela and Toit, 2001; Holsapple and Joshi, 2002; Lai and Chu, 2002; Tirpak, 2005

RESEARCH METHOD

The nature of this work is exploratory. Starting from the objective of this research, we have defined a research strategy based on case studies (Yin, 1994). A case study permits an analysis of the phenomenon in its natural environment. It is possible to use multiple methods of data gathering to obtain information on one or several entities (people, groups, or firms) (Benbasat et al., 1987).

Eleven KM cases, in organizations operating in Portugal, were studied. These organizations with KM activities were chosen by convenience. The organizations operate in the following fields: consultancy (firms mentioned here as C, G, and K), information systems and technology (firms A, B, D, and E), communication industry (firms F and H, including a telecommunications firm), and construction (firms I and J). Five of these organizations are multinational enterprises. The number of employees in the firms studied varies from 400 to 39 000. Confidentiality of the organizations and of those who were interviewed is guaranteed despite the fact that the organizations generally did not mention any concern with regard to this.

The data gathering was fundamentally based on semi-structured interviews. The respondents describe the initiatives associated with KM implementation in the firm and the factors presented in Table 1. The interviews were open-ended, realized on-site and were conducted face-to-face during 1 hour by one of the authors. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Seventeen top managers were interviewed. Each one has been responsible for, or participated in, KM projects. They were chosen by convenience. In the cases studied, the KM projects could be “owned” by significantly different departments, for example: knowledge and information, information systems, information technology, quality, and human resources. Available information through the firm and respective KM projects was also gathered.

Thematic content analysis was adopted for data analysis. The factors presented in Table 1 were used as categories for data analysis. The transcribed interviews were read, categorized, and interpreted by one of the authors and actively discussed with two other authors later. The researchers drew stages from the transcribed interviews. The factors were assigned in stages, and the stages were iteratively reviewed on the basis of the factors. This resulted in stages determined by their factors, which enabled the researchers to interpret the empirical evidences. Developing the stages by assigning the factors and comparing them iteratively for similarities and relationships could be considered a form of pattern matching as suggested by Yin (1994).

CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS

In this section, we present the motivations of organizations to adopt KM. Then we identify the relevant factors for KM implementation in the opinion of the interviewees. Each factor identified in the case studies will be discussed according to KM implementation stages. Lastly, we present the discussion of findings and limitations.

Motives for the adoption of knowledge management

One of the motives for KM implementation presented by the interviewees was knowledge retention in the firm, mainly when it came to the withdrawal of an employee (firms B, C, D, and G). Another motive, pointed out by interviewees in firms A, C, D, G, J, and K, was the need to present a single and coherent image to the customers, independent of the number of employees or the country where the firm is operating.

The increase in efficiency, through cost reduction, reply agility, communication improvement, or increase in personnel productivity, was also a motive regarded by firms A, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, and K for KM implementation. The KM contribution to other projects in the organization was evidenced in firms C, D, E, G, and K. KM was considered relevant for the certifications attainment such as the ISO 9001 and CMMI.

The association of KM with innovation was considered a motive only by firms H, J, and K. In firm H, this may be justified by the fact that this firm has an area of business intelligence where a concern for being proactive can be identified. However, there is no present link between an area of business intelligence and that of KM. In firm J, they want to innovate in order to reduce costs. In firm K, innovation is important because knowledge is the core business.

Table 2 presents a summary of motives for KM implementation in the 11 firms.

Table 2. Firms' motives for the adoption of knowledge management

Motives	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K
Increase in efficiency	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Single image to customers	X		X	X			X			X	X
Retention of knowledge due to employee withdrawal		X	X	X	X		X
Innovation								X		X	X

Interest in KM begins with the idea that knowledge is a source of sustainable competitive advantage for any organization (Chua and Goh, 2008). Organizations implement KM initiatives motivated by benefits such as cost savings, productivity improvements, customer satisfaction, and knowledge protection (Chua and Goh, 2008). These motives were verified in the cases studied. Increase in efficiency is related with cost savings and productivity improvements, whereas a single image to customer is related to customer satisfaction, and retention of knowledge with employee withdrawal is partially related with knowledge protection.

Relevant factors for the implementation of knowledge management

Relevant factors for the implementation of KM spontaneously presented by the interviewees were technology (choice, easy use, remote access, means for search)—organizations A, B, C, D, G, H, and J; motivation for people participation—organizations A, B, D, E, G, and H; top management support—organizations B, C, E, F, and H; communication to employees about KM—organizations A, E, and H; KM project leadership—organizations E and F; process—organization J; and organizational culture—organizations E, I, J, and K.

These factors mentioned by the interviewees can be associated with each organization's experience with their KM implementation. In the case of firm E, for example, the technology adopted already existed in the firm, which being used in KM with any resistance. Perhaps, the attention to each factor depends on each organization's stage related to KM implementation and its context.

Most of the factors mentioned are associated with the process dimension (technology, stimulus for people to participate, communication, process, and KM project leadership) and only two with the internal context (top management support and culture). Content and external context dimensions were not mentioned. Some of the factors of the content dimension need to be identified even before the KM process begins, for example, the definition of KM objectives. External context would be a more advanced stage where after establishing the process internally to the firm, it goes on to involve the external environment.

Technology is a concern in most firms, but this does not mean that these firms consider KM synonymous with technology. This concern can be attached to the geographical dispersion of employees making remote access fundamental to the quantity of content considering the size of the firm and ease of use, that is, technology may be a facilitator and not an impediment to workers.

Another factor that stands out is the stimulus for people participation in the KM project. This may be understood as monitoring the worker's participation, symbolic participation rewarding, considering KM participation in individual performance evaluation, use of appropriate (sometimes formal) means for people to identify the importance of their participation, and the creation of means to enable people to meet. This supports the argument that there is no KM without people, that is, technology is indispensable but not enough.

Top management also has an important role in defining priorities and supporting KM activities. The commitment of top management was pointed out in most of the cases studied. The other factor associated with the internal context was culture. Although culture is referred by several researchers in the literature as being relevant (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001), this factor was mentioned only in four organizations. This may be explained by the fact that culture is indirectly cited in the factor “stimulus for people participation.”

Stages of knowledge management

The case studies will be discussed according to the four stages of KM implementation. In each stage, a group of factors are assigned, and the following stage maintains the group of factors from previous stage and incorporates other group of factors.

First stage—planning

With regard to the factors of the internal context, the interviewees mentioned organizational culture as being fundamental for KM implementation. For some organizations, it is a problem to be solved, as expressed by an interviewee in organization H: “The sharing culture is a challenge that we will have to face.” Competition between employees was also pointed out as a barrier to knowledge sharing. More fluent knowledge sharing was observed in the consultant and information technology firms, perhaps because the success of each depends on the team's success.

Top management support was regarded as essential by all interviewees. People in firm C mentioned that in the beginning of KM implementation, workers questioned the carrying out of activities, but if the board communicates the relevance of doing so, people continued to work without complaints. In firm K, it was mentioned that top managers have to set an example related to KM initiatives. Top management support was not identified in firms B, F, and H.

The organizational structure can also influence KM implementation, but it is not as strong as organizational culture and top management support. In two consultancy firms where work is normally carried out by teams, it was said that sharing is part of the day-to-day of the employees. This might be a role of the organizational structure as it should enable horizontal communication, prevent hierarchical impediments, and motivate teamwork as well as work among teams, in addition to integrating the different departments in the firm. One reference came from firm B saying that “although we do have hierarchy, we work more in a network.”

In firms A, C, D, E, G, I, J, and K, KM was aligned with business objectives and KM objectives were developed. This was considered relevant by them. In firms B, F, and H, there is still no clear objective for KM.

In most of the firms, the cost does not seem to be a problem for the implementation of a KM system. This occurs probably because they act in the information technology area, they already have the necessary technology and investments are only needed in human resources. With the lack of metrics to clearly show the benefits that KM can obtain for the organization, the justification for investment could become difficult. However, only firms B and H indicated difficulties in allocating financial resources to KM initiatives.

Second stage—initiation

Explicit knowledge is easier to document with the use of repositories. This was noticeably the main focus for three firms (A, D, and I). In firms A and D, this may be due to the KM implementation's relation with certification attainment. The unification of repositories enables knowledge searching, thus preventing additional problems and also reducing the probability of errors in stored content. The five firms (C, E, G, J, and K) with well-structured KM activities contemplate both tacit and explicit knowledge.

In the process dimension, the existence of people from different departments in charge of KM is pointed out as relevant for KM implementation. This occurred in firm E with the creation of a team from all departments led by the human resource manager. Firm F also reinforces this idea of transversal responsibility.

A significant concern with gathering, storage, and dissemination of knowledge was observed in many firms (A, C, D, E, G, I, J, and K). However, only one firm (K) reported a formal evaluation phase to measure KM benefits. In firms C and G, they mentioned the existence of statistical information on KM activities and that those firms were considering developing a benefits measurement approach for KM.

As a significant percentage of the firms have their activities related to information systems and information technology and as they are large firms, neither the adoption of technology nor its cost has been a problem. However, in the information technology department of firm E, the need to standardize was noticed, including information technology (IT) tools. It was referred in the interviews that it would be better to use information technologies that already exist in the firm in KM activities, because it would lead to less resistance to change. IT is very important in a KM project, especially in large firms, such as the ones that were researched. Firm B makes use of one of their software products to support KM. In this company, it is not possible to identify a formal KM process.

When it comes to the participation of people in KM activities, a curious situation was perceived. In the communication department of firm H, it is expected to see employees participating in KM activities only in extra time, out of working hours. On the other hand, in consultancy, IT, and construction firms, time allocation to KM activities is included in people's working tasks.

Third stage—development

A common pattern in firms C, D, E, F, and G was that whenever a new IT tool is introduced, the workers have to receive training. In firms A, C, and K, they also mentioned an integration process for new employees, including KM training. In firm I, it mentioned training on the relevance and value of knowledge sharing. All firms regarded training as a relevant factor for KM implementation.

In firm A, they believe that the audit is a fundamental factor for employees to store documents. There is a monitoring process through internal audits telling the name of those that showed non-conformity to the process. However, there is no reward system for those who did not present non-conformities. The performance evaluation system in firm C contemplates knowledge sharing, but it is not the most appraised item. Firms E, G, J, and K mentioned some kind of reward system. Firm I is not doing it, but they are planning to use one.

Communication was emphasized as relevant by all firms. The practices adopted vary considering the synchronous means of communication (meetings, messenger) and asynchronous (newsletter, e-mail). Firm I is not adopting any specific kind of communication, but they are planning it at this moment. Firms B and H are not adopting any kind of communication related to KM.

Knowledge management should contemplate explicit and tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is the main focus in one firm (B). There is a concern in firm A with data storage, just as with the availability of employee curricula. This shows a consolidated preoccupation in relation to explicit knowledge and an initial move as to tacit knowledge. It is through the curricula that people can identify the expertise of one or another and manners of contracting them. In the perception of those interviewed (firm A), it is still necessary to improve the sharing of technical issues, that is, learning in relation to the process and not only the documentation of projects. Five firms (firms C, D, E, G, J, and K) contemplate both tacit and explicit knowledge. All firms regard tacit and explicit knowledge as being relevant for KM.

The interviewees did not mention the expected benefits with KM, with the exception of firm K. This possibly occurred because only firm K has defined metrics for KM evaluation. Two IT firms said that the next step is the definition of metrics for KM. Despite the inexistence of metrics, there are some statistics of access to knowledge bases and its contribution to the company.

There was no observation on consensus on the importance of the core knowledge factor for KM implementation. Whereas for some, it is difficult to identify what relevant knowledge would be (firms C, D, and E), for others (firms F, G, I, J, and K), it was easy to define. Firms A, B, and H did not manifest about this aspect. In a general way, we can observe that in consultant and IT firms, knowledge focus is related to projects. The focus of construction firms is in the construction process. This could indicate that core knowledge is not a factor to be considered in the beginning stages.

Fourth stage—integration

When it comes to the external context factors, for organizations such as A, B, C, D, E, G, J, and K, the customers become the source of information and may even be integrated in the KM activities. For example, in one organization, the customer can participate in communities of practice. Organizations F and H say that the integration of a customer should be a later stage in KM implementation, one interview said that “as long as there is no internal evolution in KM activities, we will not give space for the customers.”

The integration of the supplier to the KM process in organization E facilitated negotiations between companies. The technological manufacturers in organizations D, G, and K are seen as partners with an important exchange of knowledge between them. The figure of the supplier seems to be clearer in technology and communication organizations than that of consultancy.

The firms define differently what a partner is. For instance, in firms D and K, partners are technology suppliers, whereas in firms E, G, and J, universities are their partners, and for firms A, C, and J, partners are firms that develop services. Independent of the way that they identify a partner, seven firms consider their involvement in KM.

The achievement of business intelligence activities frequently mentioned the sense of noticing competition, and associating these activities with KM. A curious aspect is seen in firm H where there is a business intelligence section and another of KM, but they are not connected. Firms B, C, D, E, G, and K mentioned some type of activity involving competitors.

The role of legislation in KM implementation is not quite clear to those interviewed in firms B, D, and F. In firm H, it was said that the procedures adopted for KM need to be coherent with the company's conduct policy. For firms A, C, E, and G, legislation should be under consideration for confidentiality issues and the protection of the firm's knowledge. It was mentioned that the employees should know the legislation that is pertinent to the section where they work. For firm K, this legislation corresponds to intellectual property and confidentiality. For firm J, legislation about construction should be transformed in procedures that are available to employees.

Discussion of findings and limitations

The results provide support for the proposition that KM implementation occurs in stages, and for the fact that each stage has a group of factors associated. The KM initiatives adopted by the firms are similar in some ways. There are differences in the diversity of initiatives, but especially in relation to the KM stage that each firm is at this moment.

In three firms (one of IT and two in communication), a totally structured KM process was not observed. They are at the first stage—planning. In the IT firm (B), the highlight is on a tool that supports KM. In one communication firm (F), the emphasis is on the availability of information for the workers, being mostly external information. In the other communication firm (H), the KM area is linked to the department of information technology that understands its role as only a technological support for all areas. In these three firms, we can observe one common problem: the absence of top management support for KM.

Firms of information technology A, D, and E and the firms of construction I and J can be considered in the second stage of KM implementation (initiation). In one IT firm (A), a concern with tacit and explicit knowledge is perceived. Nevertheless, there is an emphasis on technology in the firm. When it comes to people, the concern is in making the profile of workers and means of contact available to anyone, which supports the elaboration of propositions and the identification of people with specific knowledge and experience, yet it does not guarantee the dissemination of knowledge. In another firm (D), the focus is on documental management motivated by certification attainment. Firms A, D, E, I, and J have no metrics to evaluate the process. These five firms are organizing the process phases.

In two consultancy firms (C and G), it is possible to observe relatively structured KM practices with a concern for tacit and explicit knowledge. We can classify these two firms in the third stage—development. In these two firms, there is equilibrium between the elements of technology, people and process, but there is not yet consideration of some elements such as KM benefits. In these cases, they evaluate the process, but they do not evaluate the results.

Firm K has more experience in KM and can be classified in the fourth stage—integration. They have a structured KM, and they are continuously updating it. They have all factors from stage one under control. For example, they have top management support and they have strategies that motivate a culture of sharing. They are continuously enhancing factors from the second and third stages. Related to the fourth stage, they are integrated with the external context.

Table 3 presents the factors, classified in the four stages that were identified in the firms. We did not analyze what they are doing about each factor, but just if they are considering that factor in some way.

Table 3. Factors classified in the stages and identified in the organizations

Stage	Factor	Organizations
		A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K
Fourth	Legislation	X		X		X		X				X
	Customers	X	X	X	X	X		X			X	X
	Suppliers				X	X		X				X
	Partners	X		X	X	X		X			X	X
	Competitors		X	X	X	X		X				X
Third	Training	X		X	X	X	X	X		X		X
	Rewarding systems			X		X		X			X	X
	Communication	X		X	X	X	X	X			X	X
	Tacit knowledge	X	X	X	X	X		X			X	X
	Benefits											X
	Core knowledge						X	X		X	X	X
Second	Explicit knowledge	X		X	X	X		X		X	X	X
	Knowledge management project leader	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Process phases			X				X				X
	Technology	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Time	X	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X
First	Top management support	X		X	X	X		X		X	X	X
	Organizational culture	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Organizational structure	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Alignment with business objectives	X		X	X	X		X		X	X	X
	Objectives	X		X	X	X		X		X	X	X
	Budget	X		X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X

The analysis of cases studied highlighted the relevance of top management support and cultural issues in KM implementation. The organizational structure is relevant because it has a strong impact in decision making on other factors such as in the type of technology to be adopted. These three factors are clearly considered relevant in all the studied firms.

The analysis of the cases also showed that the factors in the external context are only taken for granted after KM is internally organized. Some firms described initiatives to integrate external context since the beginning of KM implementation, but they agree that external context can only be fully integrated after KM will be internally working well. Moreover, the legislation was considered in different ways for KM implementation. Another aspect to be considered is the understanding that suppliers and partners can be a single factor for some firms.

The content dimension is distributed through the planning, initiation, and development stages. Core knowledge is the only factor that the interviewees do not have a common perspective about its relevance to KM implementation. In some firms, it was difficult to identify what the core business is.

The process dimension is also distributed in the stages planning, initiation, and development. Budget, time, technology, and KM project leadership do not appear to be a significant problem for the firms. The interviewees have concerns about rewarding system, training, process phases, and communication. The way to treat these factors depends on the context of each firm.

The number of employees varied from 400 to 39 000. It could be a limitation because KM approaches in small and large organizations might differ. However, independently of the KM approaches, the factors must be the same ones, what must be different are the requirements of each factor. The requirements of each factor are not being argued in this phase of the research.

The use of a variety of industries is a limitation of this research. Each industry can use different types of knowledge and is likely to manage them differently. This kind of sample was used with the intention of creating a generic model. However, in the sequence of this research, it will be necessary to analyze in more depth which industry characteristics are relevant for KM.

Another important consideration is that the organizations chosen are at different stages. Organizations in the earlier stages do not contribute to conclude about KM in the later stages. This is a limitation. On the other hand, it is important because for each stage there are organizations describing the present and organizations describing the past. Organizations at the last stage have to use the interviewees' memory and documents to describe the previous stages.

CONCLUSION

The factors proposed by Oliveira and Caldeira (2008) aided in the structuring of the elements that should be contemplated in a framework that could guide the implementation of KM initiatives in organizations. Just like the dimensions, the factors were shown to be relevant in the firms analyzed.

Knowledge management is an evolutionary process, which is noticed in the cases studied. In a general way, the firms studied began by implementing a document management system, which, in some cases, was motivated by certification attainment, loss of knowledge caused by the employee withdrawal, or even by the need for knowledge protection. Results show that one consultancy firm has all KM stages implemented; two other consultancy firms were identified in third stage—development; five of the firms (three in IT and two in construction) are in second stage—initiation; and three firms (two in communication and one in IT) are just in the first stage—planning. Figure 1 presents the firms classified in the four stages.

Figure 1. Firms classified in the knowledge management (KM) implementation stages

The contributions of this study are both to the academic community and practitioners. First, we proposed a framework for KM implementation in four stages, with dimensions and factors associated with each stage. We used the literature review to identify relevant factors for KM implementation. The organizations do not pay attention to all factors at the same time. A group of factors are incorporated in each stage, and it is maintained in the following stages, when other factors are incorporated. Empirical evidence, from 11 cases, supported our proposal of four KM implementation stages. The empirical evidence also pointed out the relevance of the factors associated to start in each stage, considering KM implementation as an evolutionary process.

Finally, we would like to point out that this work represents an exploratory study on KM practices in Portugal. The case studies were useful because they contributed to elicit and verify the factors to be taken under consideration in a framework that enables managers a better exploration of techniques and procedures to implement KM in a more effective way.

It was observed in every firm that, although some factors exist, there is a variation in the way and intensity with which they are considered in each organization. For example, in one organization, training topics included KM and IT for KM, whereas in others, it is only IT training for KM. So, as a follow-up, we intend to analyze the requirements of each factor in each stage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful for the support provided by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico).