Validating and documenting a new knowledge management system philosophy: a case based on the ISO 30401:2018-KMS standard

Figures & data

Table 1. DSR triangulations carried out in support of projectable PKMS affordances.

Projectable Affordances – DSR Triangulations carried out against KM/KMS-related Notions (see www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrich-Schmitt)
Vertical Projectability: theoretical-to-empirical/practical Effectiveness V1Ts Network Communities & Social Platforms (InformSciJ:2017d) V2K+ Sustainable Development Goals/Digital Intelligence V4Ds General-Purpose-Technologies & Innovation (ECKM:2019d) V4Dc ISO 30401:2018-KMS Standard (KMPR:2022a) V4Dc CK-Theory & Scaling for Innovation (Kybernetes:2020 f) V5Ej SMEs & Stage-Growth Models (JEIEE:2018a) V5E+ From DSR Project to Start-up Venture V5E+ Appropriation vs. Participation(in-progress) V5E+ Thought Leadership V6C+ KMS Ecosystems as Decontextualised Boundary Object	Worldmaking, Scenario Building, and Visioneering W2Ks Twelve Dynamic Knowledge Creation Models (EJKM:2019c) W3A+ Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization W3Sj Systems Dynamics & Activity-Based Modelling (IJMO:2020b) W4Dc Visioneering, Vision Quality Criteria (Sustainability:2021a) W4Dc DSR Projectabiliy, Heritage & Domain Evolution (Sustainability:2021b) W5E+ Value Appreciation for Adoption (in-progress) W5E+ Promise and Trust Engineering SDG-QC W5E+ ISO 56000:2020 Innovation Management Standard W6Cs DPE: PKMS-OKMS-LMS Co-evolutions (InformingSciJ:2020e) W6C+ Non-linear Personal eLearning Environments
Focus on actual real World (incl. fixations & unsustainabilities) F1Ts Webs of Documents and Data (IEEE-NextComp:2017e) F1Tc Digital Threats Assessment (Sustainability:2018b) F2Ks Digital Scholarship/Curation, Traceability (JTKS:2015i) F2Ks Experience Management Concepts (ProWM:2017a) F3As Hierarchy of Needs & Kano Model (Procedia-ICKM:2016 h) F4Ds Design Science Research Guidelines (InformSciJ:2016 j)	Horizontal Projectability: theoretical-to-theoretical Synergies H2Ks KM Models & Methodologies (JIKM:2015 f) H2Ks Schools of KM & Knowledge Assets (ICKCCM:2016d) H2Ks Informing Science Methodologies (InformSciJ:2015d) H3Ss Memetics (LNCS/AISC:2016a) H3Sc Entropy & Generativity Models (Entropy:2020c) H3Sc Generativity & Fitness-Utility-Models (Kybernetes:2019e)
Legend: F: Focus on actual real World H: Horizontal Projectability (theoretical-theoretical) V: Vertical Projectability (theoretical-practical) W: Worldmaking and Scenario Building c – clarivate (WoS) s – scopus j – journal + planned	Main Emphasis on: 1 T: Technological 2 K: Knowledge, KM, Informing, Organization 3A: Academic & Educational 4S: Systems Thinking 4D: Design Science & Innovation 5E: Entrepreneurial 6C: Co-evolution LMS-PKMS-OKMS

Figure 1. Bird’s-eye view of PKMS as a digital DSR artefact (Schmitt, 2021b) with synergies between PKMS/SICEE model and OKMS/SECI model (bottom table).

Table 2. Table of contents of ISO:30401 with number of unique text quotes used.

ISO 30401:2018KMS Criteria	#	ISO 30401:2018KMS Criteria (cont.)	#
0.0 Introduction (0.1–0.5) 1.0 Scope 2.0 Normative references 3.0 Terms and definitions 4.0 Context Organization, Understandings 4.1 Organization & Context 4.2 Expectation of Interested Parties 4.3 Determining the Scope of KMS 4.4 KMS 4.4.1 General - 4.4.2 Knowledge Development a) Acquiring new knowledge b) Applying current knowledge c) Retaining current knowledge d) Handling outdated/invalid knowledge 4.4.3 Conveyance & Transformation a) Human interaction b) Representation c) Combination d) Internalisation and learning 4.4.4 KM Enablers a) Human capital b) Processes c) Technology and infrastructure d) Governance e) KM culture 4.5 KM Culture	1-- 2 – 7 8 10 – 1 4 6 7 4 7 3 6 2 5 4 2 3 5 6 5 3 4	5.0 Leadership 5.1 Leadership & Commitment 5.2 Policy 5.3 Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities 6.0 Planning 6.1 Addressing Risks & Opportunities 6.2 KM Objectives & Planning 7.0 Support 7.1 Resources 7.2 Competence 7.3 Awareness 7.4 Communication 7.5 Documented Information 8.0 Operations 9.0 Performance Evaluation 9.1 Monitor Measure Analyse Evaluate 9.2 Internal Audit 9.3 Management Review 10 Improvement 10.1 Nonconformity, Corrective Action 10.2 Continual Improvement Annexe A (Informative) KM Range Annexe B (Informative) KM Connectivty Annexe C (Informative) KM Culture	- 8 7 - - 5 7 – 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3

Figure 2. PKM4D framework, ecosystems, and GPT criteria (Schmitt, 2020c).

Figure 3. OKMS-PKMS divides and co-evolutionary potential (Schmitt, 2020c).

Table 3. Identified causes and positive (+) and negative (-) effects segmented according to public/private knowledge clusters (Schmitt, 2020a).

	Public Knowledge	Private Knowledge
Discoverable Knowledge	Information Entropy [1] Perception of Information Overload - Attention Poverty, Mobility -	Online and Publishing Realities [2] More rapid iterative Improvement + Innovation & Reputation Systems +
Undiscoverable Knowledge	Structural Holes [3] Knowledge Islands & Siloes [4] Ineffective Utilisation [5] Deficient Awareness/Education - Innovation & Opportunity Divides -	Invisible Work, Scaffolding [6] Non-Linear Relationships [7] Unproductive Rework - Holistic Understanding -

Legend/References: 1 (Bush, 1945; Simon, 1971); 2 (Bush, 1945; Nielsen, 2012); 3 (Brix, 2017; Burt, 2004); 4 (Levy, 2011; Szostak et al., 2016); 5 (Stewart & Cohen, 1999); 6 (Bush, 1945; Star, 2010); 7 (Mintzberg, 2005).

Schmitt, U. (2021b). Reframing a novel decentralized knowledge management concept as a desirable vision: As we may realize the memex. Sustainability, 13(7), 4038. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmitt, U. (2020c). Scalability of generative knowledge management systems: Designing for individuals’ and institutions’ mutual benefit. Kybernetes, 50(10), 2701–2725. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2020-0324.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmitt, U. (2020a). (Neg)Entropic scenarios affecting the wicked design spaces of knowledge management systems. Entropy, 22(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020169

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101–108. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/.

 Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communication, and the public interest. Johns Hopkins Press.

 Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton University Press.

 Google Scholar

Brix, J. (2017). Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning: A longitudinal case study of a public innovation project. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.05.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Levy, P. (2011). The semantic sphere 1. Wiley New York.

 Google Scholar

Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Springer.

 Google Scholar

Stewart, I., & Cohen, J. (1999). Figments of reality: The evolution of the curious mind. Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mintzberg, H. (2005). Developing theory about the development of theory. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 355–372. https://mintzberg.org/sites/default/files/article/download/developing_theory_about_the_development_of_theory_jan_2014.pdf.

 Google Scholar