Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Examining knowledge audit for structured and unstructured business processes : a comparative study in two Hong Kong companies
Authors: Yip, JYT
Lee, RWB 
Tsui, E 
Keywords: Knowledge management
Knowledge audit
Issue Date: 2015
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Source: Journal of knowledge management, 2015, v. 19, no. 3, p. 514-529 How to cite?
Journal: Journal of knowledge management 
Abstract: Purpose - This study/paper aims to study the knowledge audit methodologies needed in structured business processes (SBP) and unstructured business processes (UBP) respectively. The knowledge audit methodology used for SBP aims to identify and capture procedural knowledge, while the one for UBP aims to facilitate the sharing of experiential knowledge. The designs of audit methodologies, including elements of knowledge elicitation (KE), knowledge representation (KR), and role of researcher (RR) for SBP and UBP, are proposed in this paper. Design/methodology/approach - Two knowledge audit cases studies were conducted. The first case was conducted in an SBP, and the second one in an UBP. The first case provides a view of a typical knowledge audit in SBP, the limitations are identified. The second case pinpoints the development of a new knowledge audit methodology applicable for UBP. Findings - A significant differentiation between knowledge audits in SBP and UBP is that the knowledge to be captured in the former is procedural knowledge, whereas that to be elicited in the latter is experiential knowledge. The deliverables in the former include lists of knowledge workers, knowledge assets and knowledge inventories, and in the latter include the interplay of interaction between activities, stakeholders and knowledge displayed in the form of a knowledge activity network. Originality/value - This research clarifies and strengthens the position of the knowledge audit by illustrating two knowledge audit methodologies for respective use in SBP and UBP. It points out that the fundamental difference of knowledge audit approaches is attributed to the different knowledge requirements. To cater to the different knowledge requirements, the authors asserted that three basic components of the knowledge audit, namely, KE, KR and the role of the researcher, should be customized.
ISSN: 1367-3270
EISSN: 1758-7484
DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0420
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article

View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show full item record


Last Week
Last month
Citations as of Aug 19, 2017


Last Week
Last month
Citations as of Aug 12, 2017

Page view(s)

Last Week
Last month
Checked on Aug 13, 2017

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.