Developing an Architecture Model for Enterprise ...

Developing an Architecture Model for Enterprise Knowledge based on the Zachman Framework: an empirical study in Iran Mostafa Jafari , Peyman Akhavan and Elham Nooranipour Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1793423). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Citation: Jafari, Mostafa, Akhavan, Peyman, and Elham Nouraniour (2009), Developing an architecture model for enterprise knowledge, an empirical study based on the Zachman framework in Iran, Management Decision, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 730-759.

Abstract Purpose- The main objective of this paper is to explore the role of knowledge architecture in an enterprise and to provide a model to architect enterprise knowledge based on the Zachman framework. Design/methodology/approach-This is a conceptual article providing a knowledge architecture model for an organization based on the Zachman framework which discussed several perspectives from the knowledge management point of view and information technology. To confirm the validity of the model a questionnaire was designed, applied and then analyzed by some statistical methods. Findings- providing conceptual knowledge architecture model that can be applied to Iranian organizations practically. The validity of this model is confirmed by polling the opinion of knowledge architecture experts.

Research limitations/implications- The lack of resources directly related to the subject of our research, the novelty of this kind of research in Iran and the lack of organizations which perform a knowledge architecture model in real are the restrictions of this research. Our suggestion for further research studies is to execute the model and survey from foreigner experts. Practical implications- This article may be beneficial for enterprise architects in knowledge area. Originality/value- The paper may be of high value to researchers in knowledge management field and to practitioners involved with KM adoption in the organizations. It gives valuable information and guidelines which hopefully will help the leaders and the senior knowledge management managers to accomplish KM through their organization successfully. KEYWORDS Knowledge Management, Knowledge Architecture, Knowledge Map, The Zachman Framework

© Emerald Group Publishing

1. Introduction Although theoretical underpinning is yet fragile, knowledge management (KM) has attracted increasing attention from academicians and practitioners alike (Kakabadse et al., 2001; Bergeron, 2003). The spectrum of KM is so ample, encompassing both organizational aspects and technical factors (Kang, Park and Kim, 2003). Knowledge management architecture makes the general model of the knowledge management’s technical infrastructure available; in other words, the set of systems, technologies and connections which offers a framework to protect the technology of enterprise knowledge management. Knowledge management architecture comprises both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge and should be designed to support both enterprise architecture and information architecture. John Zachman, one of the pioneers of information systems architecture, believes in the analysis of the organization based on an architectural framework. He believes that the injection of information technology into an organization without utilizing an architectural framework will cause several expenditures of systems’ development and maintenance and the conversion of systems and data and incoherency with the new technologies for the organization. In the Zachman framework a two dimensional matrix (people and operations) is presented which is a powerful implement to analyze the Efficiency of software engineering products. The main purposes of this article are: 1) Appointment of the features of an enterprise knowledge architecture model 2) Appointment of knowledge architecture’s framework and process based on the Zachman framework 3) Presentation of a way to achieve knowledge architecture by using the Zachman framework to establish the knowledge management system in an organization

2. Knowledge Management The result of the knowledge revolution is represented by the new economy or the knowledgebased economy, which is radically different from the previous economy types known by mankind. Essentially, the knowledge-based economy is characterized by the conversion of knowledge into essential raw material, capital, products, production factors of the economy and through economic processes within which such activities as generating, selling, buying, learning, storing, developing, sharing and protecting the knowledge become a predominant and decisive condition for profit generation and the long-term durability for the organizations (Jafari et al, 2007). On the other hand, there is an agreement that the knowledge-based society has arrived, and those organizations that will succeed in the global information society are those which can identify, value, create and evolve their knowledge assets (Rowley, 1999; Lai , 2007). Many © Emerald Group Publishing

argue that knowledge has become the main competitive tool for many businesses (Berawi and Woodhead, 2005). Drucker (1993) has described knowledge, rather than capital or labour as the only meaningful economic resource in the knowledge society, and Senge (1990) has warned that many organizations are unable to function as knowledge based organizations, because they suffer from learning disabilities. Companies must innovate or die, and their ability to learn, adapt and change becomes a core competency for survival. The forces of technology, globalization and the emerging knowledge economy are creating a revolution that is forcing organizations to seek new ways to reinvent themselves. Knowledge management can be established and implemented in every part of the organization including all departments and sub departments; and even it can be considered and generalized from micro level in the organization to a macro level in a country, that can facilitates knowledge based development (Akhavan et al., 2006). Refocusing of attention on the complex nature of organizations is enhanced by a situated approach to change (Orlikowski, 1996), emphasizing a practice-based perspective. Small but continuous, incremental and cumulative change can be very significant and “is often realized through the ongoing variations which emerge frequently, even imperceptibly, in the slippages and the improvisations of everyday activity”. Thus, organizational change is not “an on-off phenomenon” (Weick and Quinn, 1999), for organizational routines are not stable, repeatable, patterns of behavior that are maintained from one iteration to the next but are “emergent accomplishments . . . they are flows of connected ideas actions and outcomes” (Feldman, 2000). Defining the concept of KM is difficult, as different perspectives or schools of KM can yield different dimensions and meaning (Maier and Ha¨drich, 2006). For examples, Malhotra (1998) holds that KM ’’embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings’’ ;Coombs and Hull (1998) classified KM activities under three major headings: “knowledge processing, knowledge domains and knowledge formality”; for Bukowitz and Williams (1999), KM is ’’ the process by which the organization generates wealth from its intellectual or knowledge-based assets’’ ; empirical survey by Chong et al. (2000) has identified it as ’’a process of leveraging and articulating skills and expertise of employees, supported by information technology’’; Bhatt (2001) sees knowledge management as ’’a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution and application’’ ; in the eyes of corporate players such as Jim Botkin, President of Interclass, he associates KM with ’’communications, capturing of best-yet practices and sharing for reuse what has worked before’’; and a more formal definition of KM given by The American Productivity & Quality Center, is ’’the strategies and processes of identifying, capturing, and leveraging knowledge’’(Yahya & Goh, 2002) . Further, Marwick mentioned that the whole set of knowledge management activities accommodates the organization to focus on problem solving, © Emerald Group Publishing

dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision making by gaining, maintaining, transferring and utilizing the knowledge(Marwick,2001). Although the above definitions vary in their description of KM, there seems to be a consensus of treating KM as a process of leveraging of knowledge as the means of achieving innovation in process and products/ services, effective decision-making, and organizational adaptation to the market. Perhaps the definitions will give a more complete understanding of KM if it is linked with the organisational knowledge management system (OKMS). OKMS could be viewed as a system that enhances organizational learning through facilitation of knowledge (both tacit and explicit) exchange and sharing. Moreover, the full implementation of knowledge management has significant consequences for the structure and culture of the organization, and the roles of managers and workers (Choi et al, 2008). There are a number of questions that senior managers should seek to answer before moving to a full implementation of knowledge management (Rowley, 1999): (1) What is the central objective of knowledge management within an organization? Is the interest, for example, in leveraging implicit knowledge, retaining knowledge of employees as they exit the organization, or in more efficient access to knowledge repositories? (2) What are the levels at which knowledge management must be considered, and how can it be executed at the different levels? Can knowledge management be utilized for specific projects or work groups, without impacting upon the entire organization? (3) What is the scope of knowledge management in relation to the types of knowledge that it should embrace? The main divide is between implicit and explicit knowledge, but there may also be different types of focus. For example, the emphasis may be on competitor profiles, or on technical know-how. (4) What are the technologies and techniques to be employed in knowledge management? Is the priority document creation and management technologies or on group working technologies, such as Lotus Notes? (5) What organizational roles are needed to support knowledge management, and what are the associated competencies that both individuals and organization need to acquire? Organizations have recognized that successful knowledge management initiatives depend on the commitment of top management, and the contribution of senior consultants or experts. Ernst & Young have found two key roles: 

The database content manager is a subject matter expert who is responsible for the quality of the content;

and




The knowledge network coordinator is a consultant or coach to the people in the network, and their main role is to drive change in the way in which people do their jobs.

There will be no simple answers to these questions because in a diverse and changing business environment, the nature of knowledge management is likely to be ever changing. Indeed knowledge management in different organizations may serve different organizational purposes. However, there is no doubt that organizations need to develop the capacity to be able to survive in a knowledge-based, global marketplace. Therefore, an understanding of the potential offered by knowledge management and the way in which knowledge management can be used effectively within their business will become increasingly crucial for businesses and other organizations.

3. Knowledge Architecture Reviewing the critical success factors to establish a knowledge management program, four topics are remarkable: culture, knowledge architecture, information technology infrastructure and supportive services (Chatterjee, 2002; Holm et al, 2006). Since knowledge management addresses the generation, representation, storage, transfer and transformation of knowledge (Hedlund, 1994), the knowledge architecture is designed to capture knowledge and thereby enable the knowledge management processes to take place (Wickramasinghe, 2003). Knowledge architecture is required to assure the successful implementation of a short period or a long period knowledge management program (Tang, Han, Chen, 2004). In other words, the marshalling of tacit knowledge and the use of proximity (Boschma, 2005) for competitive gains needs a specific institutional frame, a specific “knowledge architecture” (Evers, 2008). A knowledge architecture emerges on the basis of knowledge (Chay et al. 2005; Chay et al. 2007). Knowledge flows and knowledge depositories constitute the knowledge architecture of an organization. A “knowledge architecture” is therefore a property of an organization (Evers, 2008). However, there is a popular definition for knowledge architecture as follows (E. Lasnik, 2000): “Knowledge architecture specifies the place and the method of acquirement and transference of enterprise knowledge. It includes both of tacit and explicit knowledge and is designed to support both information architecture and business architecture thoroughly. In other words, knowledge architecture includes the manner of knowledge creation, knowledge application and the way in which the organization learns.” Thus, the components of knowledge architecture are (figure 1): People (the organizational staff especially knowledge workers, knowledge writers and knowledge owners), processes (the processes that knowledge workers use to achieve the organization’s mission and goals), behaviors( knowledge worker behaviors which has effect on the environment and context in which KM process must occur), technology(the information technology that facilitates the © Emerald Group Publishing

Processes

Content

Behaviors

Technology

People

Figure 1-Knowledge architecture components Source: Chevran (2001)

identification, creation and diffusion of knowledge among organizational elements within and across enterprises, for instance an enterprise portal) and content(the corporate knowledge base that is captured electronically(Chevron, 2001;Snyman & Kruger,2004). Otherwise, underlying the knowledge architecture is the recognition of the binary nature of knowledge; namely its objective and subjective components. Knowledge can exist as an object, in essentially two forms – explicit or factual knowledge – and tacit or “know how” (Polyani, 1958, 1966; Gupta & Sharma, 2004). It is well established that while both types of knowledge are important, tacit knowledge is more difficult to identify and thus manage (Nonaka, 1994, 1991; Gupta & Sharma, 2004). Furthermore, objective knowledge can be located at various levels, e.g. the individual, group or organization (Hedlund, 1994; Kanter, 1999). Of equal importance, though perhaps less well defined, knowledge also has a subjective component and can be viewed as an ongoing phenomenon, being shaped by social practices of communities (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995). The objective elements of knowledge can be thought of as primarily having an impact on process while the subjective elements typically impact on innovation. Both effective and efficient processes, as well as the function of supporting and fostering innovation, are key concerns of knowledge management in theory (Wickramasinghe, 2003). Thus, knowledge architecture recognizes these two different yet key aspects of knowledge and provides the blueprint for an all-encompassing KMS. Clearly then, knowledge architecture is defining a KMS that supports both objective and subjective attributes of knowledge. Thus, we have an interesting duality in knowledge management that draws upon two distinct philosophical perspectives, namely, the Lockean/Leibnitzian standpoint (Malhotra, 2000) and the Heglian/Kantian stream (Wickramasinghe & Mills, 2001). Models of convergence and compliance that make up one side are grounded in a Lockean/Leibnitzian tradition (Wickramasinghe & Mills, 2001; Gupta & Sharma, 2004). These models are essential to provide the information processing aspects of knowledge management, most notably by enabling efficiencies of scale and scope and thus supporting the objective view of knowledge management. In contrast, the other side provides agility and flexibility in the tradition of a © Emerald Group Publishing

Hegelian/Kantian perspective. Such models recognize the importance of divergence of meaning which is essential to support the "sense-making," subjective view of knowledge management. Ultimately knowledge architecture delineates the structure of organizational knowledge base, the essential knowledge sources and the way in which the knowledge components is associated and connected (Goojier, 2000). Moreover, knowledge architecture specifies the way in which information converted to knowledge and transferred and connected. Besides, knowledge architecture is more than description of organizational knowledge; which means knowledge architecture is connected to an enterprise’s general strategy.

4. Information Architecture Organizing functionality and content into a structure that people are able to navigate intuitively doesn’t happen by chance. Organizations must recognize the importance of information architecture or else they run the risk of creating great content and functionality that no one can ever find. An effective information architecture enables people to step logically through a system being confident they are getting closer to the information required. Most people only notice information architecture when it is poor and stops them from finding the information they require (Horton, 1989; Barker, 2005). The concept of an information architecture is explored as a fundamental building block underlying the development of effective information systems. An information architecture is a personnel-, organization- and technology-independent profile of the major information categories used within an enterprise (Brancheau and Wetherb, 1986). The profile shows how the information categories relate to business processes and how the information categories must be interconnected to facilitate support for decision makers. Much of the material presented is based on the results of work with a panel of experts. The panel was made up of senior IS executives who have developed, implemented and maintained global/corporate information architectures (Brancheau and Wetherb, 1986). Information architecture is most commonly associated with websites and intranets, but it can be used in the context of any information structures or computer systems (Barker, 2005). Besides, information architecture addresses key considerations for both the current and future states of information processing. It makes it possible to articulate in common terms the needs of stakeholders, as well as the semantics of behavior of the system and its parts. Sound information architecture allows for full support of distributed processing, interoperability across heterogeneous systems and departments, and internetworking between systems (Barker, 2005). Of course, Standardization of processes and knowledge architecture is critical to achieving the promised return on investment (RoI) from internet-based information technology. The term “information architecture” was first coined by Richard Saul Wurman in 1975. Wurman was trained as an architect, but became interested in the way information is gathered, © Emerald Group Publishing

organized and presented to convey meaning (Barker, 2005; White, 2004). Wurman's initial definition of information architecture was “organizing the patterns in data, making the complex clear”. The term was largely dormant until in 1996 it was seized upon by a couple of library scientists, Lou Rosenfeld and Peter Morville. They used the term to define the work they were doing structuring large-scale websites and intranets. In Information Architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing Large-Scale Web Sites they define information architecture as: 1. The combination of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an information system. 2. The structural design of an information space to facilitate task completion and intuitive access to content. 3. The art and science of structuring and classifying web sites and intranets to help people find and manage information. 4. An emerging discipline and community of practice focused on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape. Today Wurman's influence on information architecture is fairly minimal, but many of the metaphors used to describe the discipline echo the work done by architects. For example, information architecture is described as the blueprint developers and designers use to build the system. The most common problem with information architectures is that they simply mimic a company’s organizational structure. Although this can often appear logical and an easy solution for those involved in defining the architecture, people using systems (even intranets) often don’t know or think in terms of organizational structure when trying to find information. Therefore, an effective information architecture comes from understanding business objectives and constraints, the content, and the requirements of the people that will use the site. Information architecture is often described using the following diagram (figure 2):

Business/ Context

Content

Users

Figure 2: Information Architecture Factors Source:Barker(2005)


Business/Context Understanding an organization’s business objectives, politics, culture, technology, resources and constraints is essential before considering development of the information architecture. Techniques for understanding context include: • Reading existing documentation: Mission statements, organization charts, previous research and vision documents are a quick way of building up an understanding of the context in which the system must work. • Stakeholder interviews: Speaking to stakeholders provides valuable insight into business context and can unearth previously unknown objectives and issues. Content The most effective method for understanding the quantity and quality of content (i.e. functionality and information) proposed for a system is to conduct a content inventory. Content inventories identify all of the proposed content for a system, where the content currently resides, who owns it and any existing relationships between content. Content inventories are also commonly used to aid the process of migrating content between the old and new systems. Users An effective information architecture must reflect the way people think about the subject matter. Techniques for getting users involved in the creation of an information architecture include: • Card sorting: Card sorting involves representative users sorting a series of cards, each labeled with a piece of content or functionality, into groups that make sense to them. Card sorting generates ideas for how information could be grouped and labeled. • Card-based classification evaluation: Card-based classification evaluation is a technique for testing an information architecture before it has been implemented. The technique involves writing each level of an information architecture on a large card, and developing a set of information-seeking tasks for people to perform using the architecture. There are two main approaches to defining an information architecture. These are: • Top-down information architecture: This involves developing a broad understanding of the business strategies and user needs, before defining the high level structure of site, and finally the detailed relationships between content. • Bottom-up information architecture: This involves understanding the detailed relationships between content, creating walkthroughs (or storyboards) to show how the system could support specific user requirements and then considering the higher level structure that will be required to support these requirements. Both of these techniques are important in a project. A project that ignores top-down approaches may result in well-organized, findable content that does not meet the needs of users or the business. A project that ignores bottom-up approaches may result in a site that allows people to find information but does not allow them the opportunity to explore related content. © Emerald Group Publishing

5. Zachman’s Enterprise Architecture Framework As mentioned before, Zachman framework presents a two dimensional matrix. The first dimension embodies the viewpoint of the people who are involved in the development of information systems. The second one defines the several system operations to categorize the related traits. In this dimension the items which should be mentioned or created information management (such as data, information, network, people, time and motivation) are settled, and in the first dimension the viewpoints which should be attended for each of these subjects are organized. Figure 3 shows the Zachman framework (Frankel and Harmon, 2003).

Abstractions (Columns) The Zachman Framework

DATA

FUNCTION

NETWORK

PEOPLE

TIME

What (Things)

How (Process)

Where (Location)

Who (People)

When (Time)

Why (Motivation)

SCOPE

List of Things important to the business

List of Processes the business performs

List of Locations in which the business operates

List of Organizations important to the business

List of Events significant to the business

List of Business Goals/Strategies

(contextual) Planner

Entity=Class of business thing

Function=Class of business process

Note=Major business location

People=Major organizations

Time=Major business event

Ends/Means=Major bus. goal/Critical success factor

Semantic Model

Business Process Model

Business Logistics System

Work Flow Model

Master Schedule

Business Plan

Ent=Business entity Rein=Business relationship

Proc=Business process I/O=Business resources

Node=Business location Link=Business linkage

People=Organization unit Work=Work product

Time=Business event Cycle=Business cycle

End=Business objective Means=Business Strategy

Logical Data Model

Application Architecture

Distributed System Architecture

Human Interface Architecture

Processing Structure

Business Rule Model

Ent=Data entity Rein=Data relationship

Proc=Application function I/O=User views

Node=I/S function (Processor, Storage, etc.) Link=Line characteristics

People=Role Work=Deliverable

Time=System event Cycle=Processing cycle

End=Structural assertion Means=Action assertion

Physical Data Model

System Design

Technology Architecture

Presentation Architecture

Control Structure

Rule Design

Ent=Segment/Table, etc. Rein=Pointer/Key

Proc=Computer function I/O=Data elements/sets

Node=Hardware/System software Link=Line specification

People=User Work=Screen format

Time=Execute Cycle=Component cycle

End=Condition Means=Action

Data Definition

Program

Network Architecture

Security Architecture

Timing Definition

Rule Specification

Ent=Filed Rein=Address

Proc=Language statement I/O=Control block

Node=Addresses Link=Protocols

People=Identity Work=Job

Time=Interrupt Cycle=Machine cycle

End=Sub-condition Means=Step

Actual Business Organization

Actual Business Schedule

BUSINESS MODEL

(Conceptual) Owner Perspectives (Rows)

MOTIVATION

SYSTEM MODEL

(Logical) Designer

TECHNOLOGY MODEL

(Physical) Builder DETAILED REPRESENTATIONS

(Out-of-Context) Sub-Contractor FUNCTIONING ENTERPRISE

Actual Business Data

Actual Application Code

Actual Physical Networks

Actual Business Strategy

Figure3: The Zachman Framework Source: Zachman (1987)

5-1.Zachman Framework Perspectives (Rows) The rows of this matrix illustrate different layers of abstraction that each of them expresses a role in an enterprise (Sowa and Zachman, 2005): 1. Scope (Contextual): Describes the purpose and the strategy of an organization which introduces the professional context of the other perspectives. 2. Business Model: Presents nature of the business which encompasses the structures, turnovers, sections and so on. 3. System Model: This model describes the previous model more precisely. 4. Technology Model: It is an exhibition of the way in which the system is accomplished. © Emerald Group Publishing

5. Detailed Representations (out of context): This vision presents special details of the implementation of particular system elements (sections which should become more distinct and more explicit before starting the production). 6. Functioning Enterprise: It is the functional vision of a system in a functional environment and in this point of view the provided systems are performing as the sections of the enterprise.

5-2.Zachman Framework Abstractions (Columns) The columns of this framework describe several dimensions of the production and the development of a system (different abstractions) (Sowa and Zachman, 2005): 1. Data (What): Describes the system container or the data( if we have information systems). 2. Function(How): Describes the system’s performance and function which includes procedures and control flows 3. Network (Where): In this prospect the remote elements and their connection is displayed. 4. People (Who): Describes the correlated people and enterprise sections. 5. Time (When): Expresses the sequence and time of the procedures and the flows which are distinct in the how prospect. 6. Motivation (Why): In this point of view the motivations to create the system and cramp rules are displayed.

6. Methodology This research is descriptive in method, because its purpose is to appoint knowledge architecture via conceptual and comparative modeling by utilizing the knowledge management procedure and depiction of knowledge capture steps. On the other hand, it is fundamental in purpose; because it describes knowledge architecture based on theoretical genuine, contextual and comparative models. Data compilation implements are scientific documents, articles and books by which the scientific framework and the model are adjusted. A questionnaire is used as an implement to collect data to confirm the validity of the model which is completed by the professors who are known as the knowledge architecture experts.

7. Illustration of The purposed Knowledge Architecture Model In order to design our knowledge architecture model, two dimensions of human and operative perspectives are mentioned similar to the Zachman framework. First dimension embodies the viewpoint of the people who are the actors of knowledge architecture. The second one defines the several operations which should be created or mentioned to architect the organizational © Emerald Group Publishing

knowledge. Subsequently, we will describe the essence of these dimensions, and then we delineate the container of each cell which is deduced from the cross over of columns and rows; then the DFD of this model is displayed. Figure 4 shows our knowledge architecture model.

7-1. Model’s Perspectives (Rows) In this section we describe the viewpoints of our model: First row defines the restrictions and the boundaries for the organizational knowledge. This point of view describes the KM objectives and strategies of an organization which interprets its knowledge direction and the professional basis of other perspectives. Second row shows the way in which senior knowledge managers of an enterprise manage the knowledge departments, knowledge workers, knowledge creators, knowledge owners and the outcome of knowledge operations. Third row describes the logic of knowledge architect‘s work. This viewpoint describes the way in which the required knowledge for an enterprise is gained or created and improved. In the Fourth row the way of utilizing technology in knowledge architecture is denoted. In other words, in this point of view the restrictions of the solutions and the technology are delineated such as the type of data bases, the language kinds, the programs’ structures, user interfaces, etc. The fifth row describes the way of software engineering. This vision is less important in the architecture point of view, because it is concentrated on a part of a system instead of the entire system. Therefore we surrender this part in the description of the knowledge architecture model. The sixth row describes the operational viewpoint of the model. The third, fourth and fifth rows outline the motif of enterprise knowledge architecture.

7-2.Model’s Abstractions (Columns) The columns of this model describe several dimensions of the model development (different abstractions): 1. Data (What): Describes the data each of the roles contains. 2. Function(How): Describes each role’s performance and function 3. Network (Where): In this prospect the remote elements and their connection is displayed. 4. People (Who): Delineates people and enterprise sections that are correlated to the organizational knowledge. 5. Time (When): Expresses the sequence and time of the procedures and the flows which are distinct in the how prospect. 6. Motivation (Why): In this point of view the motivations of the operations and restriction rules are displayed. As mentioned in the cells of the two dimensional matrix illustrating the KA model (figure 4), the posture of objects changes from one standpoint to another. For example the knowledge © Emerald Group Publishing

architect perspective is focused on the knowledge and information entities, the characteristics of knowledge workers, knowledge writers, knowledge owners and their relationships; but the IT designer perspective is focused on the tables, columns and the structure boundaries of the information systems in a linkage data base. Frequently, there is a process in which the structures of a viewpoint are transferred to the supported structures of the next point of view. In other words, each transfer makes us closer to the KM functioning model.

Abstractions (Columns)

Perspectives (Rows)

Data

Function

Network

People

Time

List of knowledge workers, knowledge writers and organizational knowledge owners

List of business events related to knowledge

List of knowledge management targets/strategies

Business Plan Based on knowledge

Knowledge Tracer

Value System(the List of essential knowledge subjects)

Designing Knowledge map

List of the location of knowledge creation resources

Knowledge Senior Manager

Knowledge Management Manual

Knowledgeable Management

Logical Network

The way of work progress

Master schedule

Logical Network Architecture

Human Connection Architecture

Processing Structure

Technology Architecture

Presentation Architecture

Control Structure

Knowledge Architect

Information Technology Designer

Knowledge Map

Gained Knowledge

Knowledge capture, conversion and knowledge repositories enrichment

Designing the knowledge maintenance and transferring system

Software Subcontractors

KM Functioning Model

Motivation

Knowledge Management Rules

Rule Design

Operational Software Systems

Actual Business Knowledge

Enterprise Knowledge Architecture

Actual Physical Network

Actual Business Organization

Actual Business Schedule

Actual Business Strategy

Figure4- the two dimensional matrix that illustrates the knowledge architecture model

7-3. The Proposal Model’s Cell Description Figure 4 shows the two dimensional matrix that illustrates the knowledge architecture model in which each cell mentions the subscription of a perspective and an abstraction. In the following section, the content of each cell is described.

7-3-1.Column 1: Data Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): Value System (Culture): In this cell the value system which is derived from an organizational culture is denoted. Culture is created on the basis of values,


norms, beliefs, theories, reports (which are derived from the analysis of different events and issues) and the process of decision making. Culture plays the role of intellectual software in knowledge creation; in other words, it creates the way of thinking and understanding and directs the people’s viewpoints, their behaviors and their type of decision making. Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): Knowledge Management Manual: Organizations should adjust a KM manual to achieve the required skills for knowledge management (Hamidizadeh, 2007). This manual operates like the constitutional law to coordinate the several organizational layers’ functions; therefore it creates a common perception among the knowledge workers. It can include concepts, targets, knowledge transfer and enrichment, knowledge creation guidelines, knowledge coding and improvement, knowledge repositories and knowledge management roles and skills. This manual has two major aspects: 1) Hard aspect consist of knowledge collection, knowledge measurement and knowledge presentation 2) Soft aspect consist of knowledge creating, knowledge sharing and spreading of knowledge The importance of these aspects in the manual is equal. The hard aspect presents the methods and implements that assure the success of knowledge management. Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Knowledge Map: In this cell the designed knowledge map by the knowledge tracer is given to the knowledge architect. Knowledge resources should be clear and understandable when they are referred. In other words, knowledge resources should be classified after they are identified. Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Gained Knowledge: In this cell the qualification of knowledge repositories is mentioned. In other words, this cell shows the physical restrictions of an enterprise’s data base and information technology. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Actual Business Knowledge: The actual data base of organizational knowledge is created and the initial data is converted and organized.

7-3-2.Column 2: Function Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): Designing Knowledge map: In this cell a pattern to purvey the knowledge map is displayed (figure 5). Knowledge map demonstrates the list of demands, information resources, knowledge creation resources and their real positions. Knowledge map is a guideline to recognize the position of knowledge, the way of knowledge creation, knowledge alignment and knowledge utilization; though, it shouldn’t be mixed up with a knowledge resource. Otherwise, knowledge map shows the knowledge offices, knowledge groups, knowledge people and documents which include knowledge and introduces knowledge workers, knowledge writers and knowledge owners. Therefore, the essential


purpose of a knowledge map is to display the address of the places to obtain the knowledge and proficiency needed.

Define organizational knowledge

Denote the participants of knowledge

Denote the knowledge extraction guidelines

Draw the knowledge map

Delineate the knowledge network connections

Validate the knowledge map

Figure 5- A pattern to purvey the knowledge map Source: Hamidizade (2008)

Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): Knowledgeable Management: In this responsibility the roles, tasks and preparing guidelines, the lead and promotion of organizational learning is followed. Besides, a senior knowledge manager should be capable of working on the basis of knowledge and intellectual properties transference. This title exist in levels such as senior information chiefs, chief of human resources’ gatherings and research segments , business segments and functional sections leadership. Furthermore, a senior knowledge manager should take the responsibilities in the base of intellectual properties and knowledge transference such as: 

Propagation and supporting knowledge and knowledge instruction



Design and apply appropriate knowledge infrastructures such as knowledge bases, knowledge networks , research units and libraries; then monitoring them



Relevance arrangement with information and knowledge providers and achieve cooperation agreements with universities and research centers, industry centers and thoroughbred organizations



Reinforcement the processes of knowledge creation and its usage by enrichment of related information networks to simplify the relevant tasks


the



plat to invent coding methods and knowledge usage, emphasizing on knowledge repositories of future knowledge frameworks



Evaluate the value of knowledge by technical and financial methods



Leading the professional knowledge managers and encourage team working spirit : to encourage team working spirit the senior knowledge managers should reconsider the old knowledge equation : Knowledge= “Power, So stock it” To: Knowledge= “Power and Wisdom, So share it to gain more”



Establishment the system of service atonement and promotion

Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Knowledge capture, conversion and knowledge repositories enrichment: In this cell the way of capturing and transferring knowledge and improving knowledge repositories is delineated. Organizational knowledge exists in two regions:  information systems and information based business processes( knowledge as information)  Staff(knowledge as human resources) The process of explicit knowledge extraction is shown in figure 6 and the process of tacit knowledge extraction is shown in figure 7.

Cognition

Internalization

Externalization

Merge & Edition

Knowledge Elicit Methods

Explicit Knowledge Extraction

Documents/Data Bases

Duties, Functions and operations Description

Information Technology base of organization

Figure 6- The process of explicit knowledge Extraction

The methods of explicit knowledge extraction are as follows (Metaxiotis et al, 2003): © Emerald Group Publishing



Merge and Edition: It is the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge by the knowledge owners who share it with each other. Reconsidering and developing manners is the key method for knowledge usage allover an organization.



Externalization: It is the acquisition and reservation of basic knowledge. The purpose of this method is accumulation and assimilation of the parallel knowledge.



Internalization: It is the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge which enables the employees to use knowledge correctly when they encounter a problem. Actually, this process sieves the gathered knowledge to extract and transfer the applied knowledge of special knowledge explorers and is consist of knowledge exposition and the presentation of its development.



Cognition: It is the knowledge application in a way that the automatic systems such as professional systems or systems based on artificial intelligence are useful. Knowledge Repository

Cognition

Intermediation

Externalization (Capture)

Sociability

Knowledge Elicit Methods

Tacit Knowledge Extraction

Processes, Tasks, Functions, Operations

Human Resources

Figure 7-The process of tacit knowledge Extraction

The methods of tacit knowledge extraction are as follows (Metaxiotis et al, 2003): 

Sociability: It is the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge via participation in experiences, imitation and practice. This kind of exercises is applicable through instruction and training, association in conferences and seminars or an organization's staff interchanges during the time out.




Externalization (Capture): It is the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge via the declaration of tacit knowledge and then its conversion to a report of a document.



Intermediation: This method is like the internalization, but it needs the conversion of tacit knowledge by employing moderators such as humans, systems and automatic performers. The assignment of these moderators is the preparation of different information and their extra refinement based on the explanation of data explorers or knowledge resources.



Cognition: It is the knowledge application in a way that the automatic systems such as professional systems or systems based on artificial intelligence are useful.

The knowledge architecture should cooperate with the information technology designer to enrich the knowledge repositories. The guidelines to enrich knowledge repositories are (Davenport et al., 1997): 1. Knowledge abstract arrangement: The goal of knowledge abstracts arrangement is to gather and convert the existing knowledge to documents, reports, articles, etc and settle them in a knowledge resource. Storing and retrieving such items should be possible mechanically. 2. Establishing the information basis of conversations, accumulating the common experiences of an organization's staff in particular outlines(Standard Resourceful Networks) There are three areas for these networks: -

Competitors’ knowledge including analyzers’ reports

-

Articles of professional magazines and researches on the market

-

Knowledge and information detection and making connections with specialist managers

3.

Classification and arrangement of the existing tacit/explicit knowledge based on the experiences and perceptions of an organization's employees.

4. Creation of internal document repositories 5. Utilization of evaluation and service atonement services to change employees' behaviors Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Designing the knowledge maintenance and transferring system: To transfer Knowledge, two aspects are considered: knowledge repository establishment and construction of knowledge transference and knowledge access channels. The Three basic knowledge repositories are: 

Knowledge

derived

from

External

environment

(customers’

knowledge,

competitors’ knowledge, related law centers, economical, political, cultural and social processes and the supporters of an organization) 

structured Knowledge based on the internal environment of an organization (presents in documents such as research reports, marketing methods and resources)




unstructured

Knowledge

based

on

the

internal

environment

of

an

organization(related to the tacit knowledge of the staff) The best techniques to design efficient connection systems and systems for knowledge transfer to establish knowledge transference and knowledge access channels are: 1) Minimizing the number of knowledge transfer among people to achieve the minimum distortion 2) Offering the 24 hours a day availability for an organization's staff from everywhere 3) Personnel authorization and persuasion to participate and share their knowledge and their systems to be used by others 4) Designing a flexible system which can be updated automatically based on the achieved questions and answers 5) Designing multi channels to transfer knowledge via interanets, face to face conversation, etc. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Enterprise Knowledge Architecture: The knowledge architecture model of an organization is converted to applicable programs

7-3-3.Column 3: Network Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): List of the location of knowledge creation resources: It illustrates the actual and essential locations of knowledge production in an enterprise Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): Logical Network: It delineates the geographical positions of knowledge resources and their connection Techniques Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Logical Network Architecture: In this cell the way in which knowledge resources are connected to each other and their connection techniques are denoted. Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Technology Architecture: It is the physical appearance of an enterprise's information technology environment which demonstrates the actual hardware and existing software systems in the nodes and lines of "software systems" such as operation systems and mid-softwares. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Actual Physical Network: It is the description of applied connection facilities.

7-3-4.Column 4: People Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): List of knowledge workers, knowledge writers and organizational knowledge owners: It's the list of an organization's sections in which knowledge writers, knowledge workers and knowledge owners are performing. Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): The way of work progress: It is the diagram of actual responsibilities assignment (attribution) (which is related to the knowledge of knowledge workers and knowledge owners) and the specifications of their services. © Emerald Group Publishing

Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Human Connection Architecture: It is the expression of logical systems of the connections between knowledge workers, knowledge writers and knowledge owners. This procedure specifies who needs what kind of knowledge and information to do his/her job and who is allowed to have access to which level of knowledge. Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Presentation Architecture: It is the physical presentation of the work cycle in an organization in which the role of knowledge workers and knowledge owners is mentioned and is composed of special distinct sections, their research requirements and the presentation format of their work products. In this cell the actual interface between each person and information technology is designed and the focus is on graphic interface issues, alternative paths, security laws (rules) and the style of presentation. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Actual Business Organization: An organization's staffs are trained to use the new system to improve the knowledge of their career and their organization.

7-3-5.Column 5: Time Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): List of business events related to knowledge:

It’s a list of

knowledge time related events which should be answered by the organization. In this cell a description of organizational knowledge life cycle is delineated. Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): Master Schedule: In this section the actual master schedule is denoted which is a description of organizational knowledge life cycle and all its respective occurrences. Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Processing Structure: In this cell the events which make knowledge to covert from one kind to another, are described. Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Control Structure: It is a physical description of systematic events and physical cycles of a process by means of control structures which pass the control from one module to another. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Actual Business Schedule: In this cell the knowledge events are being answered correctly by an organization’s staff by using information technology.

7-3-6.Column 6: Motivation Knowledge Tracer (Row 1): List of knowledge management targets/strategies: It’s a list of fundamental goals of knowledge management (strategies/ key success factors) which are important for an organization. Knowledge Senior Manager (Row 2): Business Plan Based on knowledge: This cell encompasses the policies and schematization based on organizational knowledge which shows the motivation of activities related to the organizational knowledge. Also, this cell translates the


objectives of the row above to the especial rules and limitations which are exerted (applied) on the knowledge operations. Knowledge Architect (Row 3): Knowledge Management Rules: In this cell knowledge management rules are specified as the information that should exist or the information that should be converted to. Also these rules take place in data structure (Col.1), process description (Col. 2) and administrative policies in different organizational knowledge levels. Information Technology Designer (Row 4): Rule Design: In this part the rules of knowledge management systems are converted to the elements of software program design. KM Functioning Model (Row 6): Actual Business Strategy: The rules of knowledge management and information technology are imposed to the business

8-The Model’s DFD (Data Flow Diagram) When it comes to conveying how information data flows through systems(information systems, KM systems) and how that data is transformed in the process, data flow diagrams (DFDs) are the method of choice over technical descriptions for three principal reasons (Le Vie Jr, 2000): 1. DFDs are easier to understand by technical and nontechnical audiences 2. DFDs can provide a high level system overview, complete with boundaries and connections to other systems 3. DFDs can provide a detailed representation of system components DFDs represent external devices sending and receiving data, processes that change that data, and data flows themselves. Therefore, to clarify the role of each actor (in our knowledge architecture model) and the way in which they are connected to each other, in this section the manual DFD of the model is drawn. The DFD is shown in figure 8. It should be mentioned that in this diagram we can show the performers, their actions and data flows. As it has been shown, all of actors except the software subcontractors are a member of one organization. The essential and central role in this DFD is the knowledge architect who demands knowledge map (provided by knowledge tracer), knowledge repositories, documents/databases, transfer and access channels (provided by information technology designer) and the policies and knowledge related schematization of an organization (provided by senior knowledge managers), as he/she provides the application to know the place of knowledge resources & knowledge owners (for knowledge tracer), the extracted knowledge(for information technology designer), and guidelines for organizational knowledge extraction & transfer(for knowledge senior managers). Otherwise, the knowledge architect specifies the way in which tacit and explicit knowledge are extracted (figure 6 & figure 7) using the knowledge map which is designed by the knowledge tracer (figure 5); besides, the knowledge architect shows the way of knowledge transference and knowledge repositories enrichment with the aid © Emerald Group Publishing

of information technology designer according to the organizational policies presented by the knowledge senior managers (details are mentioned in the model illustration). The Information technology designer provides the best techniques to create repositories and to design efficient connection systems and systems for knowledge transfer to establish knowledge transference and knowledge access channels (details are mentioned in the model illustration). Besides, the information technology designer is the only one who has connection with software subcontractors; in other words, the information technology designer demands software production to create databases, knowledge repositories, etc. and then the software subcontractors provides customized software. Although the details of the performance of each actor are mentioned in the model’s description, the summary of their accomplishment is mentioned in the DFD (figure 8).


Software Subcontractors

Provide the Customized Software

Demand Software Production

(To create data bases, etc.)

Information Technology Designer - Knowledge repositories creation

- The best techniques to design efficient connection systems and systems for knowledge transfer to establish knowledge transference and knowledge access channels are as follows:  Minimizing the number of knowledge transfer among people to achieve the minimum distortion  Offering the 24 hours a day availability for an organization's staff from everywhere  Personnel authorization and persuasion to participate and share their knowledge and their systems to be used by others  Designing a flexible system which can be updated automatically based on the achieved questions and answers  Designing multi channels to transfer knowledge via intranets, face to face conversation, etc.

Provide knowledge repositories, documents/data base and transfer and access channels

Provide the extracted knowledge

Knowledge architect

-

Delineate the processes of explicit knowledge extraction(figure 6) Delineate the processes of tacit knowledge extraction(figure 7) Delineate guidelines to enrich knowledge repositories :  



Provide the application to know the place of knowledge resources & knowledge owners

 

Knowledge abstract arrangement Establishing the information basis of conversations, accumulating the common experiences of an organization's staff in particular outlines(Standard Resourceful Networks) Classification and arrangement of the existing tacit/explicit knowledge based on the experiences and perceptions of an organization's employees. Creation of Internal document repositories Utilization of evaluation and service

Provide guidelines for organizational knowledge extraction & transfer

Knowledge Senior Manager Knowledge Tracer

Provide knowledge map

- Define organizational knowledge -Denote the participants of knowledge -Denote the knowledge extraction guidelines -Draw the knowledge map -Delineate the knowledge network connections -Validate the knowledge map

-

Provide the policies and Schematization of an organization based on knowledge

-

Figure 8-The DFD of the Knowledge Architecture Model


Propagation and protection of Knowledge and its training Design, perform and monitor appropriate organizational knowledge infrastructures Relevance arrangement with information and knowledge providers and achieve cooperation agreements with universities and research centers, industry centers and thoroughbred organizations reinforcement the processes of knowledge creation and its usage plat to invent coding methods and knowledge usage Evaluate the value of knowledge by technical and financial methods Leading the professional knowledge managers and encourage team working spirit Establishment the system of service atonement and promotion

9- Questionnaire Design To confirm the validity of the proposed model, 50 questionnaires (appendix 1) were distributed among knowledge architecture specialists who are selected according to their reputation and resume in knowledge management and knowledge architecture. Finally 30 completed questionnaires returned and used for analysis. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the statistical population which is composed of the professors who are the members of the faculty of Management in the University of Tehran, Iran University of Science and Technology, The Tarbiat Moaalem University in Tehran (TMU) and have written a remarkable number of articles related to KA and KM and have done a lot of research on these two subjects. Besides, these professors are working as knowledge managers and knowledge architectures in other organizations’ R&D section such as Oil and petrochemical industries. To analyze the questionnaire’s reliability, the Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated by the SPSS 11.5 software (=0.8516) which proved its reliability. Table 1-The characteristics of the statistical population Scientific Rank

Count

Associate professor

10

Assistant Professor

14

Instructor Professor

6

Total

30

10-Data Analysis Methods To analyze the data, standard deviation, mean and binomial test were used (Hollander and Wolfe, 1973).

10-1-The Calculation of Standard Deviation (STD) Firstly, to analyze the data, the STD was calculated for each question of the questionnaire based on the gathered data. It is deduced that for each question the STD is less than 1(0.583-0.845) and thus it is acceptable. Table2-The Calculation of Standard Deviation Item Statistics Mean answer to question No. 1 answer to question No. 2 answer to question No. 3 answer to question No. 4 answer to question No. 5 answer to question No. 6 answer to question No. 7 answer to question No. 8 answer to question No. 9 answer to question No. 10 answer to question No. 11 answer to question No. 12 answer to question No. 13 answer to question No. 14


4.27 4.00 4.03 3.80 4.07 3.53 3.70 3.80 3.60 3.87 3.77 4.17 3.90 4.10

Std Deviation

.583 .643 .615 .583 .785 .776 .750 .714 .583 .776 .898 .791 .845 .607

Count

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

10-2-The Calculation of Mean To compare the results of completed questionnaires with the questionnaire’s average and maximum score; firstly, the total score of each completed questionnaire was calculated; then the mean score of 30 completed questionnaires was calculated(55) which is more than

the

questionnaire’s average score (42) and expresses that the model in the opinion of the KMA specialists is desirable.

10-3-The Binomial Test Likert Scale was used in the questionnaire (Likert and Rensis, 1974). The hypothesis was descriptive and the data were qualitative; thus, the binomial test is used for the statistical analysis. These items were tested in the questionnaire (14 questions): the perfection and comprehensiveness of the model; the clarity of the description of the knowledge tracer duties; the clarity of the description of the knowledge senior manager duties; the clarity of the description of the knowledge architecture’s role; the clarity of the description of the IT Designer’s role; the rows structural independence (surrendering the input of each row); the applicability of the proposed knowledge map pattern ; the applicability of the proposed pattern of explicit knowledge extraction ; the applicability of the proposed pattern of tacit knowledge extraction ; the applicability of the design techniques of connection systems, knowledge transference and knowledge access channels; the applicability of enriching techniques of knowledge repositories; attending the knowledge management strategies; and the ease of applicability and flexibility of the model. In all of the questions, we mentioned 3 as the null hypothesis (H0) and 3 as the alternative hypothesis (H1). The test results are calculated by the SPSS 11.5 software which indicates that the model is validated.Table3 shows the results of binomial test which presents that all of the questions are confirmed by the KMA specialists at a desirable percentage (60%-90%).


Table3-The Binomial Test Results Binomial Test

answer to question No. 1














Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total Group 1 Group 2 Total

Category 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

a.

Alternative hypothesis states that the proportion of cases in the first group < .6.

b.

Based on Z Approximation.

N 2 28 30 6 24 30 5 25 30 11 19 30 8 22 30 13 17 30 10 20 30 9 21 30 12 18 30 9 21 30 10 20 30 5 25 30 8 22 30 4 26 30

Statistics Observed Prop. .1 .9 1.0 .2 .8 1.0 .2 .8 1.0 .4 .6 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .4 .6 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .4 .6 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .2 .8 1.0 .3 .7 1.0 .1 .9 1.0

.6

Asymp. Sig. (1-tailed) .000a,b

.6

.000a,b

.6

.000a,b

.6

.008a,b

.6

.000a,b

.6

.048a,b

.6

.003a,b

.6

.001a,b

.6

.021a,b

.6

.001a,b

.6

.003a,b

.6

.000a,b

.6

.000a,b

.6

.000a,b

Test Prop.

11-Conclusions Nowadays, which can be called “the age of information”, knowledge is the most important factor in the long-term success of both an individual and an organization. With knowledge taking on increased importance, it makes sense that there is an opportunity to create competitive advantage by effectively managing its storage and use. Effective knowledge management architecture creates competitive advantage by bringing appropriate knowledge to the point of action when needed. Employee turnover is also reduced because a large portion of the knowledge and expertise acquired by the employee is captured in the knowledge base. It seems the key success factor is the presentation of a well designed knowledge architecture model. A successful knowledge management architecture attributes are as follows:  Available (if knowledge exists, it is available for retrieval)  Accurate in retrieval (if available, knowledge is retrieved)  Effective (knowledge retrieved is useful and correct)  Accessible (knowledge is available when needed) The main objective of this article is designing a new model to architect organizational knowledge by using the Zachman framework. To achieve this goal, firstly the concepts of knowledge management and knowledge and information architecture and the description of Zachman framework are described; Secondly, the purposed knowledge architecture model is presented (figure 4) and finally the purposed knowledge architecture model’s DFD is delineated. However there were some restrictions in our way to achieve our goal such as the lack of resources directly related to the subject of our research, the novelty of this kind of research in Iran and the lack of organizations which perform a knowledge architecture model in real. Finally, the most important results of this research are:


-

-

-

-

Providing a model to architect organizational knowledge based on the Zachman Framework which the validity is confirmed by polling the opinion of Iranian knowledge architecture experts and statistical methods. Providing the DFD that shows the way in which data flows among the people who play an essential role in knowledge architecture. The organizational knowledge architecture basic factors are an organization’s work processes; organizations staff especially knowledge oriented human resources, senior knowledge managers and ICT (Information and Communication Technology). Each enterprise should customize the presented model in proportion to its features and its situation to architect the organizational knowledge Knowledge architecture is the key success factor of a knowledge management program which depends on the employees’ motivation, anxiety and capability to share their knowledge and information with the others.

Moreover, based on the major results of this research it seems necessary to expose these proposes for the future research and investigations: - Designing an appropriate implementation process including the different phases of performing and operating the KA model in an organization - Surveying from foreigner experts about this KA Model - Designing a process to measure the staff’s tacit knowledge - Designing a process to evaluate the organizational knowledge - Designing a process to create knowledge - Designing a process for the service atonement of knowledge workers - Designing a process to improve the didactic system of an organization’s researchers based on the created knowledge Although the appliance of knowledge architecture is recognized for a long time, but the research on its outputs is generally theoretical. This article is an attempt to present a model which is applicable for the organizations.

References Akhavan, Peyman, Jafari, Mostafa and Farid Behazin (2006), “Knowledge management national policies for moving towards knowledge-based development: a comparison between micro and macro level”, Knowledge Management International Conference and Exhibition proceeding (KMICE2006), Malaysia, pp. 467-476. Akhavan, Peyman and Mostafa Jafari (2006), Critical Issues for Knowledge Management Implementation at a National Level, Vine: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 36, No.1, pp. 52-66. Barker, Iain (2005),”What is information architecture?”, Step two designs, KM column , www.steptwo.com.au Bergeron, Bryan (2003), “Essentials of knowledge management”, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons ,Inc. Berawi, M.A. and Woodhead, R.M.(2005)“Application of Knowledge Management in Production Management”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15 , No. 3, pp. 249–257 Boland, R. and Tenkasi, R. (1995), “Perspective making perspective taking”, Organization Science, Vol. 6, pp. 350-72. Boschma, Ron( 2005), "Role of Proximity in Interaction and Performance: Conceptual and Empirical Challenges" , Regional Studies, No. 39,pp.41-45 Brancheau, James C., and Wetherb, James C.(1986),” Information architectures: Methods and practice”, Information Processing & Management, Vol.22, No. 6, pp. 453-463 Chatterjee ,Jayanta(2002). “Knowledge Management-Theories, Issues and Challenges”, IEEE Annual seminar, K-ware, pp.1-4 © Emerald Group Publishing

Chay, Yue Wah, , Menkhoff, Thomas, Loh, Benjamin, and Evers, Hans-Dieter( 2005), "What makes Knowledge Sharing in Organizations Tick?- An Empirical Study.", Governing and Managing Knowledge in Asia, Singapore: World Scientific , pp. 91-110 Chay, Yue Wah, , Menkhoff, Thomas, Loh, Benjamin, and Evers, Hans-Dieter (2007), "Social Capital and Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge-based Organisations: An Empirical Study." , International Journal of Knowledge Management ,No. 3, pp.37-56 Chevron ,Jeff Stemke(2001), “Developing an Integrated Enterprise-wide Knowledge Architecture”, APQC Conference - Next Generation KM,pp.1-20 Choi , Byounggu , Poon , Simon K and Davis, Joseph G. (2008), “Effects of knowledge management strategy on organizational performance:Acomplementarity theorybased approach”, omega, the International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 235251 Davenport, T., Delong, D., and Beers, M. (1997), “Building Successful Knowledge Management Projects: Managing the Knowledge of the Organization. Center for Business Innovation”, , Ernst & Young ‘s Center for Business Innovation in Bostion, Working Paper Drucker, P. (1993), Post Capitalist Society, Harper Row, New York, NY. E. Lasnik , Vincent(2000). “Architects of Knowledge: An Emerging Hybrid Profession for Educational Communications”, STC's 50th Annual Conference Proceedings, pp.132-136 Feldman, M. (2000), “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 611-29. Frankel, David S. and Harmon, Paul(2003), “The Zachman Framework and the OMG's Model Driven Architecture”, A BP. Trend Whitepaper, pp. 1-14 Gardner, John Robert (2001),” Information architecture planning with XML”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 231-241 Gooijer, Jinette de(2000), “Designing a knowledge Management Performance Framework”, Journal of knowledge Management , Vol. 4,No.4,pp. 303-310 Gupta , Jatinder N. D. and Sharma, Sushil K. (2004), “Creating Knowledge Based Organizations”, Idea Group Publishing ,Chapter 2, pp.44-52 Hamidizade,Mohammadreza(2008),”Guidelines to design a knowledge engineering system”, Engineering Instruction of Iran, No. 36,pp. 8-33 Hamidizade,Mohammadreza(2007),”Knowledge management manual: operational approach to utilize the organizational and personal knowledge”, The articles of 9th congress of tripartite government, industry and university cooperation for national development”, pp. 187199 Hedlund, G. (1994), “A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90. Holm ,J., Olla, Phillip, Moura ,Denis and Warhaut, Manfred(2006). “Creating architectural approaches to knowledge management: an example from the space industry”, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 36 – 51 Hollander, M., and Wolfe(1973), D. A., “Nonparametric Statistical Methods”, New yourk:John Wiley&Sons, pp. 21-132. Horton, Forest Woody(1989), “Information architectures: the information resources entity (IRE) modeling approach” ,Aslib Proceedings; Vol. 41, No. 11/12, pp.313-318 Hung, Yu-Chung, Huang, Shi-Ming, Lin, Quo-Pin, and Mei-Ling-Tsai (2005), “Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 164-183. Jafari, M., Akhavan P., Rezaee Nour J., Fesharaki, M. N., (2007), “Knowledge management in Iran aerospace industries: a study on critical factors”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 375-389. Jafari, Mostafa, Fathian, Mohammad, Akhavan, Peyman and Reza hosnavi (2007), “Exploring KM features and learning in Iranian SMEs, Vine: Journal of information and knowledge management systems”, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 207-218. Kaiser, H.F. (1958), “The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 187-200.


Kakabadse N.K., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse A. (2001), “From tacit knowledge to knowledge: leveraging invisible assets.”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol.8, No. 3, pp. 137-154. Kang, Intae , Park, Yongtae and Kim, Yeongho (2003), “framework for designing a workflow-based knowledge map”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol.1, No.3, pp. 281294 Kanter, J. (1999), “Knowledge management practically speaking”, Information Systems Management,Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.7–15. Lai ,Lien F.(2007), “A knowledge engineering approach to knowledge management”,Information Sciences, Vol. 177, pp.4072-4094 Le Vie Jr., Donald (2000), “An eCommerce Primer for Technical Communicators”, STC Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conference Likert and Rensis (1974), “The method of constructing an attitude scale in Gray M. Marshall”, Chicago aldine publishing company, pp. 21-43. Maier , Ronald and Ha¨drich(2006), Thomas ,“Centralized Versus Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management Systems” , Knowledge and Process Management ,Vol. 13 ,No. 1 ,pp 47–61 Malhotra, Y. (2000),“Knowledge management and new organizational forms”, in Malhotra, Y.(Ed.), Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA. Marwick, A. D (2001),” Knowledge management technology”, IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL 40, NO 4, pp.814-830 Metaxiotis, K. , Ergazakis, K., Samouilidis, E. and Psarras, J. (2003), “Decision support through knowledge management: the role of the artificial intelligence”, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 19 No.2, pp.101-6. Mirshafiee, Ali(2006),”knowledge management and intellectual property in an organization”, Persian Oil, No. 40,pp. 34-40 Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5, pp. 14-37. Orlikowski, W.J. (1996), “Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change perspective”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 63-92. Polyani, M. (1958), “Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy”, The University Press Chicago, Chicago, IL. Polyani, M. (1966), “The Tacit Dimension”, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Rowley ,Jennifer (1999),” What is knowledge management?”, Library Management, Vol. 20, No. 8 , pp. 416-419 Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday,New York, NY. Sowa, J.F and Zachman, J.A(2005). “Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 276-292 Sankar, C., Apte, U., and Palvia, P. (1993), “Global information architectures: Alternatives and tradeoffs”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol.13, No. 2, pp 84-93 Snyman, Retha and Kruger, Cornelius Johannes(2004), “The interdependency between strategic management and strategic knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5-19 Tang , Antony and Han, Jun and Chen, Pin(2004). “A Comparative Analysis of Architecture Frameworks”, Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), August 25, pp.1-8 Weick, C.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 361-86


Wickramasinghe, N. & Mills, G. (2001), “Integrating e-commerce and knowledge management — What does the Kaiser experience really tell us”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 83-98 Wickramasinghe, Nilmini (2003),” Do we practice what we preach?” , Business Process Management, Vol.9, No. 3, pp. 295-316 White, Martin (2004),”Information architecture”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.218-219 Yahya, Salleh and Goh, Wee-Keat(2002), “Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management” ,Journal of Knowledge Management ,Vol.6 ,No. 5 ,pp. 457468 Zachman, John A.(1987), “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, IBM Publication G321-5298


Appendix 1: Research questionnaire Personal characteristics : Scientific Rank: Full professor

Row 1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

11

12 13 14



Associate professor



Question The model is perfect and comprehensive. The description of the knowledge tracer duties in this model is obvious and clear. The description of the knowledge senior manager duties in this model is obvious and clear. The description of the knowledge architect’s role in this model is obvious and clear. The description of the IT Designer’s role in this model is obvious and clear. The structural independence of the rows (surrendering the input of each row) is wellnoticed. The proposed knowledge map pattern is applicable. The proposed pattern of explicit knowledge extraction is applicable. The proposed pattern of tacit knowledge extraction is applicable. The design techniques of connection systems, knowledge transference and knowledge access channels are applicable. The enriching techniques of knowledge repositories are applicable. The knowledge management strategies are attended in this model. The applicability of this model is easy. The proposed model is flexible.


Assistant Professor

Strongly agree (5)

 Agree (4)

Instructor Professor

No comment (3)

 Disagree (2)

Strongly disagree (1)