The role of Knowledge Management Supporters in software ...

SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PRACTICE Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 2006; 11: 251–260 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/spip.269

The Role of Knowledge Management Supporters in Software Development Companies Péter Fehér*,† and András Gábor

Practice Section

Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Information Systems 1053 Budapest, Veres Pálné u. 36., Hungary

Knowledge as a strategic resource and support factor has a higher and higher importance in software development processes, and in software process improvement projects. Therefore the conscious management of this resource and the efficient support of knowledge management (KM) processes are vital for organizations. In this article, the possible knowledge-related processes and the use of the possible support factors are researched and analysed. As a result of the research an integrated model of support factors has been developed. The research was carried out among software development companies, and resulted in a framework of KM supporters: technological factors, organizational factors and human resources (HR) factors. As conclusion of the research, these factors should be used in harmony in order to achieve success. Another conclusion of the research is that KM is a vital part of the operation of any software development organization or practice. Therefore a development of a KM strategy, as well as the development of KM processes: knowledge mapping and assessment (knowledge audit), knowledge leverage (share and transfer), and knowledge development is required. Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY WORDS: knowledge management; software process improvement; change management; KM supporters; KM enablers; software development

1. INTRODUCTION In the last years, software process improvement approaches were more and more popular and both managers and users recognise its necessity for success in software development organizations. These organizations require the development of the ∗ Correspondence to: Péter Fehér, Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Information Systems 1053 Budapest, Veres Pálné u. 36., Hungary † E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

software processes, and there is a strong faith in the success of these projects. The goal of software process improvement projects is the improvement of the results of processes (product and services), and increased efficiency of processes themselves (B´ıro´ and Messnarz 2000). Software process improvement is based on the Total Quality Management (TQM) approach (Total Quality Management; summary: Sila and Ebrahimpour 2002), that is, the philosophy of continuous improvement and development. Among the improvement approaches, the most popular are the process-oriented quality-based ISO9001, the CMM (Capability Maturity Model; Paulk et al.

Practice Section

1993) that evaluates process maturity, or Bootstrap (Kuvaja et al. 1994, Haase et al. 1994). The SPICE (Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination; Dorling 1993) evaluation approach combines several methodologies since 1998 as ISO15504 Standard. Process capability is a property of processes, by which these processes are able to reach previously defined goals (Siakas and Georgiadou 1999). These models examine the controllability, manageability, and processes and service providing. Another approach that has an important role in software processes is Knowledge Management (KM). Since the mid-1990s, it became more and more popular among both practitioners and researchers. The first KM projects explored the tools and possibilities of information technology and due to the fast development of technological solutions, the idea and practice of KM have spread quickly. However, KM is not only a simple information management topic, but the researchers of other disciplines (general management, organizational theories, strategic management, human resources management, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc.) are working in this area, and enriching this area with new and different ideas, approaches, and interpretations. Therefore, KM is a frontier between different scientific areas. In this article, the role of KM and knowledge processes is examined in software development companies, and in software improvement processes. The goal of this research is to explore this demanded and only partly explored area: What kind of tools, solutions are able to support KM activities in order to increase efficiency? A further goal of this research is to identify the supportive factors of KM, and to set the conditions of their usage.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The targeted area of this research is the behavior of software development companies. Software development requires knowledge that embeds in products (software), and knowledge that describe organizational processes. In this case, the area of activity by itself justifies the requirement of conscious management of knowledge. The processes and tasks of this industry are knowledge-intensive, because of the following conditions (Starbuck 1992, Sveiby 1992, Apostolou-Mentzas 1999): Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

252

P. Fehér and A. Gábor • Organizational value-creating processes are not able to be fully standardized: although software development processes could be standardized at a high level by methodologies (feasibility study, planning, physical/logical modelling, programming, testing, etc.), but in each task creativity and adaptation is required. • Activities require high-levels of group-work and co-operation. • Employees are well-trained, creative. Quality of products and services are determined by the capabilities of employees. In the research 72 cases – software development organizations – were examined. The source of the cases is the European Software Process Improvement database, in which the researched cases were identified. The research focuses on KM solutions in software development processes that are based on the own reports of the organizations. The deep, detailed description provided the possibility of examining relationships that could be ignored by using only statistical analysis. Through quantification of cases, statistical analyses were also possible. Because of the immature nature of the researched area, the research is explorative; therefore self-feedback of findings continuously refines the research questions. Examples of organizational practices are provided as illustration, with altered abbreviation of organizational names.

3. RESEARCH MODEL OF KM SUPPORTERS Based on the literature review of existing holistic models of KM, a research model has been developed, that is the collection of research expectations. By accepting the necessity of a systematic thinking approach (Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2001), the model contains the role of organizational strategy in order to provide a wider context of interpretation. In the organizational strategy – based on the knowledge-based theory of the firm – there is an important role of managing and handling of organizational knowledge, as a strategic resource, that is the basis of competitive advantage (Grant 1996). Sub-strategies of organizations (e.g. HRMs strategy, IT strategy), that support organizational goals, can determine the conditions of KM processes. The connection between organizational strategy and KM processes is provided by KM strategy: Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260 DOI: 10.1002/spip

Practice Section

it supports organizational goals, and defines KM processes and supporters. KM strategies are vital to successful KM practices. For successful competition, based on the knowledge assets of an organization, the conscious management of this strategic resource is required. KM strategy of organizations defines the utilisation of knowledge required for supporting and accomplishing organizational strategy. It includes the goals of KM together with the tools, methods, and approaches to accomplish it. Developing the KM practices of an organization can be based on either the threats of external factors (increasing competition, better practice of competitors, etc.) that pressurise the behaviour of the organization or internal initiatives that provide opportunities to be the best in the market, or to prepare proactively for future threats. KM strategy consists of either external factors or the internal possibilities of organizations (Zack 2002). Nonaka and Toyama (2003) argue that a KM strategy is the reflection of the internal possibilities and external position of an organization. KM processes can be characterised by their purpose: evaluating and mapping knowledge assets, knowledge leverage (sharing, transfer and use) or developing knowledge (creating new knowledge and organizational learning). KM strategies can be developed on the basis of different approaches: existing knowledge of the organization can be exploited or new knowledge can be acquired and developed (von Krogh et al. 2000); personalization or codification (Hansen et al. 1999); conservative or aggressive strategies (Zack 1999). Independently of the used approach, KM strategy of an organization has to appear in organizational and technical architecture. Technological solutions provide the possibility of effective management of codified (store, process, transfer) knowledge. Information and communication technologies (ICT) decrease the barriers of knowledge sharing and transfer. Although IT solutions for (Knowledge Management Support Systems – KMSS) have a key role in supporting KM practices, management understanding of their possibilities and limitations is also required. There are several possibilities to support KM processes: creating knowledge by data-mining systems; discovering knowledge by intelligent agents; supporting co-operation, coordination and communication; Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/spip

KMS supporters in Software Development Companies

using knowledge repositories or applying expert systems (Lawton 2001). The several possible supportive factors of organizational solutions are widely discussed in general management and KM literature. Researches presented, that each of the general management factors can affect KM practices: Organizational structure can be a barrier to the effective use of KM efforts, therefore conscious reorganization, new structures, and new roles are required (Spender 1996). Human resource management activities have to face the more important aspect of the selection of valuable and appropriate employees, the different motivation factors of knowledge workers, and also the increased requirements of the management. A supportive culture can have the highest impact on KM, which is mostly based on trust, and heavily emphasized by leadership styles. In order to measure the effectiveness of any practice or process, a well-defined measurement system is required, with feedback possibilities (Ahmed et al. 1999). Measurement can include the monitoring of performance indicators, analysis of process effectiveness and questioning workers in the KM system. The research model is used as a basic expectation of useable KM supporters. During research, this model was extended (Figure 1).

4. RESEARCH AND FINDINGS 4.1. Role of Knowledge in Software Development Organizations Among the formally determined goals of the researched organizations to improve their software development processes (that highly depends on the knowledge of the organizations), clearly defined approach for KM is rare but, in several cases, the general definition of the improvement activities (quality improvement, process development, keeping the deadlines, clients’ satisfaction) covers development, introduction or execution of knowledge-related activities. These projects attempt to achieve a higher level of some maturity model (CMM, Bootstrap), and the required changes were executed on the basis this approach. By now, KM is considered to be an essential part of software process improvement models (Meehan and Richardson 2002). Process improvement Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260

253

Practice Section

P. Fehér and A. Gábor

Figure 1. Research validated framework of knowledge management and supporters in software development organizations

approaches emphasize well defined and standardized use of processes, which requires the disposability of the required knowledge. In process improvement models, the demand for knowledge sharing is also important, to decrease the dependency on employees who are single owners of Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

254

critical knowledge, therefore KM has a vital, either direct or indirect, role in software process improvement projects (Meehan and Richardson 2002). Related to the management goals of knowledge, in the case of the researched organizations, six kinds of activities can be distinguished (Table 1): Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260 DOI: 10.1002/spip

Practice Section


Table 1. Knowledge activities in change projects Knowledge activities

Rate of companies

Transferring and leveraging existing knowledge Sharing and reusing existing 65.3% experience

Sharing and using of knowledge arising in processes (Knowledge in processes)

40.3%

Sharing knowledge about processes (Process knowledge)

31.9%

Extracting and sharing customer knowledge

18.1%

Creating and developing knowledge Developing and creating knowledge about processes

Acquiring and integrating external knowledge

26.4%

8.3%

Explanation, examples

Recording, processing of personal and organizational experience, arising in any software development project, for future sharing and reuse. Example: AMN company – the AMN company stores and makes the employees’ experiences obtained from the different projects available via an Internet-based portal, which is easily accessible and usable by employees working in different geographical locations. Collection of information and knowledge required for tasks within one project instead of the general project experiences. Example: At MED experiences are documented, which arise in certain phases of the development activity to make them available for the execution of the connecting tasks. Definition of standardized, Best Practice processes, giving access to these definitions and transferring this knowledge to the employees. Example: In favour of making all employees work with the expected effectiveness, MOC company centred on that during the detail training when everybody could acquire and utilise the processes. This knowledge helps to increase and maintain the effectiveness of the processes and ensuring the quality of the products. Extract, store and communicate information and knowledge about customers and customer requirements to the developers during the development process. Example: In order to meet the demands of its customers better, the CCL company attempted to develop the communication with the clients and store the knowledge about the clients (expectations). Deeper examination and exploration of actual software development process of an organization, monitoring the process, and based on the results, determining the strengths and weaknesses, which could be the base for later process improvement approaches. Example: the MNO company collects the data typifying its activity, and then analyses them by statistical instruments. The created knowledge typifying the processes helps in discovering the weak point of the processes and establishing the process improvement activity. Developing and expanding organizational knowledge by integration of external knowledge through employees, which can be other’s experience, new solutions, technologies or process organizational knowledge. Example: in favour of developing its activity the SOC company integrates the experiences provided by its partners as the member of a co-operation group.

The bigger part of these activities concentrates on knowledge transfer, and the remaining concentrates on creating new or developing existing knowledge. Organizations and projects attempted to achieve several knowledge-related goals simultaneously, and neither of the knowledge-related project goals can exclude other project goals. ‘Sharing and reusing existing experiences’ and ‘Developing and creating knowledge about processes’ correlates negatively (−0.358), although in 10% of the cases Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/spip

these two activities are performed simultaneously. Most popular project goals are sharing and reusing experience and process knowledge.

4.2. Knowledge Management Strategies The strategic approach, which is widely concerned in e KM literature, is the question of choosing Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260

255

Practice Section


between the codification and personalization strategies, i.e. the choice between technological and organizational solutions (Hansen et al. 1999). In the case of software development organizations, knowledge and internal support of technological solutions can be considered as given: employees do not feel aversion to apply IT solutions, use of PC can be considered as evident and even managers do not feel aversion for development and use the technological solutions for internal purposes. It is a question of research, whether these organizations are able to use non-technological solutions in order to provide the efficiency of their processes? Various solutions of the codification approach were used in 78.3% of the organizations, and a further 15.9% of the companies applied technological solutions to supplement other approaches. Based on these results, most of the examined organizations attempt to codify their knowledge and support it by technological solutions, according to their field of activity. This approach emphasizes the objective character of knowledge, and it attempts to manage explicit knowledge. In the process of knowledge storing, knowledge is detached from persons, and it becomes available for everybody. This approach facilitates the transfer and sharing knowledge via IT solutions. The personalization approach – which is the emphasized usage of organizational solutions – , is considerably wide-spread, although the rate of use of personalization solutions does not achieve the level of codification approaches. At more than half of the examined companies (50.7%) the use of strong personalization solutions can be found, and there are less intensive, less characteristic personalization solutions in further 21.7% of the organizations. However, at more than a quarter of the organizations (27.5%) there is no use of personalization solutions at all. In the case of personalization approaches, knowledge is shared

through personal interactions, meetings, conversations, in which personal communication, expertise and experience have important role. In these cases, the subjective and personal character of knowledge is dominant, and during personal interaction tacit knowledge can be transferred. The research of Hansen et al. (1999) among consultancies – that can be considered as one of the most typical knowledge-intensive activities – concludes, that organizations must choose between codification and personalization approaches, otherwise they endanger their efficiency and success. Based on the results of the present research, strong use of both personalization and codification approach is typical at almost a third (30.77%) of the organizations that introduced KM processes successfully. Furthermore almost two-thirds (65.38%) of the successful companies applied some sort of combined approach of personalization and codification. Applying a successful pure strategy meant typically the codification strategy at almost a third of the successful organizations (30.77%), while pure personalization approach can be found only in 2 companies (3.85%) (Table 2). However the rate of the organizations that use pure personalization approach is also low (4.35%), and the rate of pure codification strategy is rather high (27.54%) in the whole sample. Based on the results of this research, the use of pure personalization or codification KM approaches is not the precondition for success. Furthermore, the compulsory option between the two KM strategic approaches is not required for every knowledgeintensive organization. This result is confirmed by the opinion of other researchers (Wiig 1999, Adelmann and Jashapara 2003), who believe, that the compulsory option is a uniqueness of consultancies. However, another research suggests that consultancies moved from the pure strategies towards combined strategies, because of the problems of

Table 2. Use of codification and personalization strategies in case of successful activity Personalization is not typical (%)

Weak personalization (%)

Strong personalization (%)

Totally (%)

Codification is not typical Weak codification Strong codification

0 0 30.77

0 1.92 17.31

3.85 15.38 30.77

3.85 17.31 78.85

Total

30.77

19.23

50.00

100.00


256

Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260 DOI: 10.1002/spip

Practice Section


Table 3. Summary of technological supporting tools Form of technological support

Rate

Main correlations

Technological support overall

62.5%

+ Co-operation between several departments is necessary (0.333) + Codification strategy (0.400) − Personalization strategy (−0.367) − Mentoring, coaching (−0.238) − Empowerment (−0.353) − Ask for the opinion of the employees, agreeing (−0.417)

Document management/knowledge repository

38.89%

+ Codification strategy (0.353) + Strategy focusing inwards (0.262) − Empowerment (−0.238)

CASE tool, modelling

15.28%

+ Psychological motivation (0.290) + Kind of culture (0.247) + Support the co-operation (0.499) + Drawing in via the trainings (0.302) − Personalization strategy (−0.268)

Workflow solution

5.56%

Not applicable

Knowledge map

5.56%

Not applicable

Data analysing tool

22.22%

− Mentoring, coaching (−0.238) + Managerial role (0.308) + Necessity of managerial support (0.273)

Expert system

1.39%

Not applicable

Other supporting tool

9.72%

Support the document handling

–

their traditional approaches (Fehér 2004). Furthermore even the research experience of Truch and Bridger (2002), who conducted their research among non-consultancies, and concluded that the precondition of successfulness is the use of combined strategies cannot be justifiable. Based on the results of this research, examined organizations typically attempt to use their existing internal knowledge, thereby accomplishing conservative strategies. In development and enlargement of knowledge, even significant innovative activities are not prioritised approaches; therefore accomplishing conservative strategies is not typical. 4.3. Technological Issues Technological supporting tools usually mean the usage of IT solutions, that exist in almost every organizational process. However, concentrating only on IT solutions would exclude the research of communication tools, such as telephone, mobile phone or videoconference. Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/spip

– + Codification strategy (0.851) + Change of culture (0.261) − Personalization strategy (−0.358) − Integration of new knowledge (−0.383) − Training during work (−0.390)

Therefore, the research was conducted on the field of wide technology (including IT and telecommunication technologies). Technological solutions provide the environment and infrastructure for executing processes. Widely accepted and used technological solutions, like communication devices (telephone, mobile phone, fax), internet access, e-mail are excluded from the analysis. These tools are a basic part of the daily operations of organizations. In 62.5% of the researched organizations clear technological support of KM is identifiable (Table 3). With regard to the knowledge value chain, technological support is mostly used for creating, storing and sharing knowledge, but except these knowledge processes, others were not so popular. Therefore only a close circle of the possible technological solutions were used, but complex solutions that support every organizational activity (Lawton 2001) have not been introduced. (example: TTC company used the most technological solutions to support storing and using existing experience: Qualitative Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260

257

Practice Section

and quantitative information stored in conventional databases; ‘Best Practice’ based general tools; expert system; Knowledge map of employees having useful experience; Detailed description of processes based on the environment). In the field of office-automation for communication, widely accepted, basic solutions were mostly used. For coordination activities, the usability of specific solutions (workflow) is rather low. Mostly co-operation activities were supported by document management, modelling, CASE tools. This supports the widely accepted theory, that the area of co-operation has the biggest impact. Based on statistical analysis the reason for using technological solutions was primarily supporting the co-operation activities (between departments and employees), and providing communication channels. However besides technological solutions, personal interactions were de-emphasized (e.g. mentoring). Technological solutions can ensure the more independent work of employees with wider decision making possibilities with less risk. However, the experiences show the opposite: empowerment is typically used at organizations that do not emphasize the role of technologies. Technological solutions can provide higher possibilities of controlling activities that could be beneficial for managers, therefore it can support centralised decision making. This theory is supported by the phenomena, that during introduction of technological solutions, the opinion of employees was not emphasized. To summarise, the usage of technological solutions is typical at organizations that use mainly codification KM strategy approach, and less typical in the case of personalization strategies. However, technological solutions are able to support even the personalization strategy. Knowledge map solutions that describe the knowledge, expertise and skills of employees, and communication solutions are able to support personalization goals. 4.4. Organizational Issues In the case of analysing organizational issues – based on the research model – overlapping categories, factors can be recognised, and these factors can affect each other in several occasions. The application of the organizational factors has a significant role not only regarding the provision of the activities, but also for the purpose of the Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

258


execution of the changes. Change management deals prominently with the role of the managers, the involvement of the employees as well as the question of change of the organizational culture. In most of the organizations the new values, new solutions were built into the daily operations and behaviour, therefore the culture has been successfully changed. Representative cultures were the knowledge networks (informal knowledge sharing, mentoring, learning-by-doing), and knowledge flare (management example and support). The change of culture and behaviour did not base on status or compensation. For success, the formal and informal channels of personal communication have a vital role that is mostly the characteristic of organizations with personalization strategies. In the researched organizations, significant change of the organizational structure was not experienced, organizations were project based, only new roles or organizational units appeared related to KM activities. 4.5. Measurement and Feedback In the case of the researched organizations, measurement and feedback activities were experienced at two levels. At the top level, mostly benchmarking, or software process levels approaches (Bootstrap, CMM) were used that resulted in a level of software process maturity. It is necessary to measure these levels not only before and after changes, but also in regular periods, in order to provide continuous control, and evaluation of tendencies. This approach was realised in the majority of the examined organizations (61,1%), and the results of this benchmarking approaches is comparable with the practice of other organizations. This approach concentrates on process development and development, therefore these measures are partly adequate for assessing the knowledge-related activities. A deeper, operative level of measurement activities is the continuous controlling of performance indicators that could be the basis of further process improvement activities. This approach provides a more direct feedback, and indicates areas in which development is required, or explores problematic or risky areas. Measurement approaches examine the adequacy of processes, explore the roots and causes of problems, and support problem solving. Based on these measurements, the organization of activities, the Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260 DOI: 10.1002/spip

Practice Section

selection of supportive tools or organizational solutions can be arranged or changed. Based on operative measurement, the continuous incremental development of supportive solutions was necessary. Measures did not analyse the effectiveness of single supportive factors, and deep cause-result analysis was not possible. During measurement, the effectiveness of knowledge-processes and supportive tools were analysed together. Based on a third kind of method, performance was measured in separate departments of organizations, and summarised indicators were analysed. These indicators can be: costs, number of faults, time-to-market ratio. These indicators are adequate for comparing the situations before and after changes.


and therefore the efficiency of organizational processes (Figure 1). Based on the conducted research, for conscious management of organizational knowledge in software development organizations the simultaneous use of both factors are necessary, based on a well-grounded KM strategy and with the support of continuous feedback and performance evaluation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have to thank the International Software Consulting Network1 , for the possibility of conducting this research, as well for Varpex Plc. (Depozit) for supporting it. I would also like to thank the unknown reviewers for reading and commenting on the article.

5. CONCLUSIONS Every supporter in the research model has a role in the examined cases, although their importance is variable. The basic findings are the following: • KM strategies have impact both on KM processes and on supporters. KM strategies connect organizational strategy with KM practice. • The use of technological solutions is widely accepted. They have a role not only in the case of codification strategies, but in these cases they have a vital role. • Knowledge-oriented organizational culture and support of communication has critical role for success in the area of organizational solutions. The structure of organizations has not changed dramatically; therefore the evaluation of the role of organizational structures is partly missing. Incentives do not have a critical role, especially using cash-incentives. Lack of management support is more of a barrier, and definitely not a success factor. • Performance evaluations and matrix are present during KM practices, but the scope is slightly different, and rarely KM specific. Matrix often measure the performance of a department, or a project. As a result of the research the basic research model has been extended. This model includes both technological and organizational solutions and support factors that are able to increase the efficiency of KM practices in software development organizations, Copyright  2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/spip

REFERENCES Adelmann H, Jashapara A. 2003. Embedding knowledge management into business processes: The use of threaded discussion forums and knowledge objects at AstraZeneca. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management, McGrath F, Remenyi D (eds). Management Centre International Limited: Reading, MA, 13–23. Ahmed PK, Lim KK, Zari M. 1999. Measurement practice for knowledge management, Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 11(8): 304–311. Apostolou D, Mentzas G. 1999. Managing Corporate knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of Experiences in Consulting Firms Part I-II, Knowledge and process management 6(3): 129–138 and 6(4): 238–254. B´ıro´ M, Messnarz R. 2000. Key success factors for business based improvement. Software Quality Professional 2(2): 20–31. Dorling A. 1993. SPICE: Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination. Software Quality Journal 2(4): 209–224. Fehér P. 2004. Combining knowledge and change management at consultancies. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1): 19–32. Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109–122, Winter Special Issue. 1

http://www.eurospi.net/ Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260

259

Practice Section

Hansen M, Nohria N, Tierney T. 1999. What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review March–April, 106–116. Kuvaja P, Simila J, Krzanik L, Bicego A, Koch G, Saukonen S. 1994. Software Process Assessment and Improvement: the BOOTSTRAP Approach. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford. Lawton G. 2001. Knowledge management: ready for prime time? IEEE Computer 34(2): 12–14. Meehan B, Richardson I. 2002. Identification of software process knowledge management. Software Process Improvement and Practice 7(2): 47–55. Haase V, Messnarz R, Koch G, Kugler HJ, Decrinis P. 1994. BOOTSTRAP: Fine tuning process assessment. IEEE Software 1(4): July 25–35. Nonaka I, Toyama R. 2003. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 1(1): 2–10. Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber CV. 1993. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Software 10(4): 18–27. Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J, McCaw D, Newman B, Rebeck K. The knowledge management methodology team (2001) A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems 31(1): 5–16. Siakas KV, Georgiadou E. 1999. Process improvement: The societal iceberg. In European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI ‘99), Pori, Finland, November 1999, 25–27.


260


Sila I, Ebrahimpour M. 2002. An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between 1989 and 2000: A literature review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 19(7): 902–970. Spender JC. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 45–62, Winter Special Issue. Starbuck WH. 1992. Learning by knowledge – intensive firms, Journal of Management Studies 29(6): 713–740. Sveiby KE. 1992. The knowhow company: strategy formulation in knowledge – intensive industries. International Review of Strategic Management 167–186, Wiley: Chichester. Truch E, Bridger D. 2002. The importance of strategic fit in knowledge management organization. In Proceedings of the Xth European Conference on Information Systems: ECIS 2002, Stanislaw Wrycza (ed.). University of Gdansk: Gdansk, Poland, 905–918. von Krogh G, Ichijo K, Nonaka I. 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press: New York. Wiig KM. 1999. What future knowledge management users may expect. Journal of Knowledge Management 3(2): 155–165. Zack MH. 1999. Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review 41(3): 125–145. Zack MH. 2002. Developing a knowledge strategy: Epilogue. In The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings, Bontis N, Choo CW (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 2006; 11: 251–260 DOI: 10.1002/spip