This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Chen, M.-Y. Articles by Chen, A.-P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004

An-Pin Chen

Institute of Information Management, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

In this paper, the development of knowledge management (KM) was surveyed, using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004. With a keyword index and article abstract, we explored how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on a scope of 108 articles from 80 academic KM journals (retrieved from six online databases), we surveyed and classified methods of KM measurement, using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-orientated analysis and organizationorientated analysis, together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Future development directions for KM performance evaluation are presented in our discussion. They include: (1) KM performance measurements have tended towards expertise orientation, while evaluation development is a problemorientated domain; (2) different information technology methodologies, such as expert systems, knowledge-based systems and case-based reasoning may be able to evaluate KM as simply another methodology; (3) the ability to continually change and obtain new understanding is the driving power behind KM methodologies, and should be the basis of KM performance evaluations in the future.

Key Words: knowledge management • performance evaluation • literature survey

Journal of Information Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 17-38 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0165551506059220


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y.-M. Wang and Y.-S. Wang Examining the dimensionality and measurement of user-perceived knowledge and information quality in the KMS context Journal of Information Science, February 1, 2009; 35(1): 94 - 109. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Sue Young Choi, Young Sik Kang, and H. Lee The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination Journal of Information Science, October 1, 2008; 34(5): 742 - 754. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Y.K. Chua and D. H. Goh Untying the knot of knowledge management measurement: a study of six public service agencies in Singapore Journal of Information Science, June 1, 2008; 34(3): 259 - 274. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.-J. Shen, C.-C. Chang, and Y.-C. Li Combined association rules for dealing with missing values Journal of Information Science, August 1, 2007; 33(4): 468 - 480. [Abstract] [PDF]