Page 164 -

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 153

This is helpful in the sense that it recognizes that different types of ICT will
be more or less useful for different knowledge processes. At the same time, the
Xu and Quaddus (2005) study demonstrates that it is the storage and transfer
technologies which are most popular in terms of the types of KMS that are used
in practice.
In relation to the storage and transfer processes, we can contrast two different
types of KMS: McAfee (2006) describes these as ‘platform’ and ‘channel’ tech-
nologies; while Alavi (2000) distinguishes between ‘network’ and ‘repository’
technologies. Channel or network technologies (e.g. e-mail) can be used where
it is clear that a particular individual or group needs specific information and
knowledge from another individual – for example, a software project manager
needing information from sales about the client requirements for a new system.
Channel technologies are thus used to pass information and knowledge from
a source to one or more recipients. In other cases, however, it is not known in
advance who will need, or find useful, particular information and knowledge,
either right now or in the future. In this situation some kind of platform or
repository technology (e.g. an organizational intranet) is used so that people can
store and search/retrieve information and knowledge as they need it. The fact
that so many organizations have adopted these two types of KMS implies that
decision-makers believe that sophisticated ICT tools can help in the capture,
storage and transfer of knowledge.
Many commentators, however, are more sceptical about the utility of new
ICTs for delivering organizational performance improvements (Blair, 2002).
Thus, many organizations have put a lot of effort into putting content on to their
intranets – a type of platform technology (McAfee, 2006), where documents can
be stored and searched – but research has found that users do not always find these
platform technologies useful. Davenport (2005), for example, found that only 44
per cent of survey respondents felt that it was easy to find information they needed
by looking on the company intranet. The other very popular type of KMS involves
channel technologies, such as e-mail (McAfee, 2006), which allow the sharing
of documents between particular individuals, either one-to-one or one-to-many.
This research finds that those involved in knowledge work rely more heavily on
the channel (e.g. e-mail) than the platform (e.g. intranets) technologies, reflect-
ing the extent to which knowledge work is a social activity dependent on joint
production of knowledge. However, even the channel tools have problems with
regards their ability to enhance knowledge processes. For example, Davenport
(2005) found that 26 per cent of people in a survey felt that e-mail was over-used
in their organization; 15 per cent felt that it reduced their productivity; and 21 per
cent actually felt overwhelmed by the amount of e-mail that they received.
One reason for the limitations of these KMS, goes back to the earlier discussion
in Chapter 3 about the mutual relationship between technology and organiza-
tion. A KMS per se, will not in itself, improve the capture, storage and sharing of
knowledge. It depends on how the KMS is perceived and used as part of people’s
everyday work practices. From all the many studies that have been done on the
implementation of all kinds of ICT in an organization, we know that adoption
of technology and its subsequent use are not straight-forwardly linked.

6/5/09 7:05:10 AM
9780230_522015_08_cha07.indd 153 6/5/09 7:05:10 AM
9780230_522015_08_cha07.indd 153