**2. Organisational knowledge management (KM)**

Knowledge is recognised as a valuable asset by organisations and has gained a great deal of attention in academic and business world alike. Interest in KM stems from the realisation that organisational knowledge is a strategic corporate asset that needs to be generated, represented, stored, transferred, transformed and applied to future organisational problems (Shultze & Stabell, 2004). Thus enhancing companies' competitive advantage as it improves efficiency and performance and enhances innovation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, 1991). Consequently, KM practices are now considered as established practice in large organisations (Srikantaiah & Koenig, 2000).

KM is concerned with how this knowledge is created, used, transferred and applied (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & Konno, 1998). KM therefore should focus on information in relevant context and having an understanding of interrelationships and behaviour (Nonaka & Teece, 2001; Wenger et al., 2002; Nonaka, 1994). Furthermore, authors such as Davenport & Prusak (1998) and Coleman (1999) have promoted KM as a practice with implications beyond that of simply developing information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures, with information sharing and retrieval potential. For example, according to Pollard (2003) the expectations are mostly of organisational gains in terms of:


Customer relationships

270 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

Morgan, 1985). It assumes that knowledge, within the domain of human action, is a necessary social construction and therefore inevitably subjective (Walsham, 1993). Hence an interpretivist paradigm was used with the research design comprising of two stages: an exploratory case-study and a cross-sectional sector wide survey used in order to validate the findings emerging from the first phase. Thus a mixed method approach using interviews

The results show that knowledge embodiment and use in projects occurred during systems development and dissemination owing to the actual utilisation of the 3D models during business transactions and training activities. Since one of the primary goals of KM is to share, transfer and disseminate explicit knowledge, the sharing of this knowledge if done in an ad hoc manner can result in KL. Even the best laid KM policy or framework can be a source of KL due to the absence of an integrated risk management approach. In addition, the general nature of the KM models allows for KL, this weakness or discrepancy occurs where policies and practices do not merge. Another reason for KL is the fact that KM models have failed to consider the protection of knowledge within the organisation and across it

In addition, current risk identification process in organisations tends to occur via two pathways. This is clearly based on the relationship between an interacting company and their direct customers and the resulting risks from this relationship. Risk identification and assessment have been characterised as fundamental for business continuity and to maintain a competitive advantage over ones competitor. It is essential for the successful business relationship between developing companies and its direct customers, and may ultimately be crucial for the acceptance and success of the 3D modelling solutions proposed. Each party should have an interest in determining the risk associated with acquiring and interacting

Knowledge is recognised as a valuable asset by organisations and has gained a great deal of attention in academic and business world alike. Interest in KM stems from the realisation that organisational knowledge is a strategic corporate asset that needs to be generated, represented, stored, transferred, transformed and applied to future organisational problems (Shultze & Stabell, 2004). Thus enhancing companies' competitive advantage as it improves efficiency and performance and enhances innovation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, 1991). Consequently, KM practices are now considered as established practice in large

KM is concerned with how this knowledge is created, used, transferred and applied (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & Konno, 1998). KM therefore should focus on information in relevant context and having an understanding of interrelationships and behaviour (Nonaka & Teece, 2001; Wenger et al., 2002; Nonaka, 1994). Furthermore, authors such as Davenport & Prusak (1998) and Coleman (1999) have promoted KM as a practice with implications beyond that of simply developing information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures, with information sharing and retrieval potential. For example, according to Pollard (2003) the expectations are mostly of organisational gains in

and survey was employed.

with the 3D environments in their own organisation.

organisations (Srikantaiah & Koenig, 2000).

**2. Organisational knowledge management (KM)** 

boundaries.

terms of:

 Growth and innovation Productivity and efficiency


In general, KM in organisations should be seen as the process of critically managing knowledge to meet existing needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge and to develop new knowledge in order to take advantage of new opportunities and challenges (Quintas et al., 1997). Strategically, KM must be seen as an approach to: manage organisational knowledge assets, support management decision making; enhance competitiveness, and increase capacity for creativity and innovation (Zyngier et al., 2004). Operationally, KM should be viewed as a cycle that starts with knowledge creation, which is followed by knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention and refinement (De Jarnett, 1996).

### **2.1 Knowledge management characterisation**

There are several classifications of knowledge with the most common being explicit, implicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; McInerney & Koenig, 2011; Polanyi, 1974). Explicit knowledge can be transmitted using logical language and hence can easily be shared and stored (Srikantaiah & Koenig, 2000). Tacit knowledge on the other hand is intangible; it is not easily codified and articulated in formal languages. Nonetheless according to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) both types of knowledge do not compete with each other, but rather be supplemented by each other. Implicit knowledge can be transferred, but without a conscious process, during learning (Jones & Miller, 2008).

However, regardless of the philosophical stance adopted about knowledge and KM this research focuses on the leakage of knowledge rather than its classification and management meanings ascribed to this concept. KM activities and in particular the forgone are prone to KL due to its very nature because KM processes are coupled with the use of VRE.
