A new institutional reading of knowledge management technology adoption

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a new institutional perspective of knowledge Management technology adoption through an empirical study of a knowledge intensive firm. Design/methodology/approach The research involved collection of qualitative data about knowledge management practices. The analysis was carried out over a six month period by means of ethnographic research and a series of interviews. It focused mainly on the personnel involved in Knowledge Management initiatives within two information technology units of a telecommunication firm. Findings This article proposes a new institutional perspective of knowledge management as an alternative of the instrumental point of view. The authors argue that knowledge management initiatives are better understood if considered as rational myths instead of rational choices. Research limitations/implications The paper has some limitations. First, the research is based on a single case study; secondly, the authors acknowledge the difficulty in having full access to decision‐making rooms or corridors “of power” where institutional pressure is exerted. To improve the theoretical framework and the methodological approach, both qualitative and quantitative analyses are recommended. Originality/value Why do organizations, even in the face of the poor results produced by knowledge management initiatives, continue to invest financial and organizational resources in knowledge management related technologies? This article proposes that this apparently irrational behaviour can be explained when evaluating knowledge management initiatives, rather than in their instrumental value, as symbolic means to legitimate the organization in an environment where the management of knowledge is said to be a core feature of modern organizations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.