**5.6 Research gaps**

60 New Research on Knowledge Management Technology

result of the human brain processing, analyzing and filtering information to reach conclusions. Information is not knowledge. Yet many organizations fail to understand the difference and are disappointed when a huge investment in technology does not deliver the expected results (Hurley, 2010). Organizations need tacit knowledge because it can drive the organization forward and increase the efficiency on how the organization can operate and be more competitive. In an organization, workers come and go and some of them might have ten to fifteen years of working experience. Their invaluable experience in handling certain practices is important for the organization to expand its potential and knowledge

Building a system for KM is thoroughly different from building a system for conventional purpose. As discussed earlier, abandoning social, cultural and organizational issues may interrupt the development process of a good KMS. The character of learning and sharing needs to be cultivated in the foundation of any given organization. Workforces that are willing to learn and share their ideas and experiences in an organization can enable the KMS to perform better. When a knowledge management initiative is seen as the exclusive mandate of the technological department it can become an exercise in information and document storage and retrieval. Successful knowledge management is about fostering an environment in which knowledge is shared and questions asked and answered across the

Most organizations are still structured along hierarchical lines that are not conducive to interdepartmental collaboration or cooperation and yet this collaboration is essential to knowledge management. Finding and managing the flow of knowledge in an organization requires a very different approach to managing information. Creating an organizational culture where knowledge sharing is the norm is the most important and most difficult part of implementing knowledge management within a business. As with all organizational change, technology can and does play an important and integral part but it cannot alone be

KMS approach without input from all stakeholders can interrupt KMS intended goal. Current knowledge management technologies cannot yet handle uncertainties with inadequate information. They cannot deliver the right information to the right person at the right time because companies cannot predict what the right information to distribute is and who the right people to distribute it to are (Lang, 2001). Stakeholders need to anticipate the prospect of building the KMS and also to identify the experts needed to collaborate with the developers of KMS. Besides, inadequate knowledge or data in the KMS may perhaps be one of the weaknesses of the current KMS available. The quality of information can also be a turn-off. If the first item the user opens is unexpectedly scrappy, then the user will not look further (Straker, 2009). The user's experience is important when navigating the KMS in order to look for specific knowledge. If the experience is not worth a visit due to the poor

Other than the quality of the data in KMS, a complex user interface and a complex operation can also be an obstacle for the user to use the KMS. When the users only want a simple system and do not have the time to learn how to use it fully then such systems are liable to

Another strong reason why KMS fails in achieving its intended goal is because people are unwilling to cooperate during requirement elicitation for KMS. Apart from that, when the KMS is completed, there is no valuable knowledge input to the KMS itself. People are reluctant to share their invaluable experience and knowledge that they have acquired over

quality of data stored, then the user might not consider using the system again.

capabilities.

internal barriers of departments and teams.

the driver (Hurley, 2010).

fall into disuse (Straker, 2009).

KM approaches should include methods to overcome impediments to knowledge transfer. Implementing effective methods to counteract impediments in this way may not always be possible (Szulanski, 1996). For example, it may be too much to expect that contributors describe a knowledge artifact, including the factors that associate the strategy with the original context, and how the strategy should change when applied to different contexts.

KM approaches may fail when they attempt to create a monolithic organization memory. Organizations that have tried to develop a massive organization memory as a whole have failed (Ackerman, M. S. and Halverson, C. A. (2000)). Among other reasons, such organizations are distributed and may have conflicting goals.

Such organizations may fail when they do not incorporate with humans, processes, and technology (Ackerman & Halverson, 2000). This is justified by the limitations and importance of each of these components. Humans alone are slow and have limited capacities. Processes are the main component in delivering organizational goals. Thus, any approach that is not associated with processes will tend to fail or be perceived as failures.
