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

ABSTRACT

The integration of knowledge management (KM) and KM systems (KMS) within the ISO 9001:2015 and 30,401:2018 standards, adds further legitimacy to KMS research, design, and applications. By allowing to prioritise one’s KMS approach of choice, the standards are offering a common language to present an organisation’s KMS comprehensively and consistently for auditing and accreditation but foremost for effectively informing and involving their stakeholders. This article tests these abilities by applying the criteria to an alternative decentralised KM concept and system-under-development. By focussing on personalisation, mobility, generativity, and entropy reduction, the approach differs considerably from conventional KMS wisdom, and is presented as a case to investigate if the ISO 30401:2018 standard’s scope can accommodate the novel affordances. As a first case study of this kind, the adopted process and positive outcomes may assist KMs developers and KM practitioners as well as researchers in realising and assessing their own projects.

KEYWORDS:

• ISO 30401:2018 KMS
• ISO 9000:2015 QMS
• knowledge management system
• Personal Knowledge Management
• entropy
• generativity

1. The role of standards for quality/knowledge management system design

Human evolution has not only thrived on big brain memory and communication technology with a high degree of accuracy, but also on an insatiable urge to use this technology for the purposes intended (Hughes, 2012). The exponential growth of knowledge propelling understanding among increasing levels of noise and complexity is, hence, grounded in co-evolutionary learning processes between emerging knowledge economies, advancing physical and social technologies (Beinhocker, 2006), and humans in pursuit of affordances (Batten, 2000; Schmitt, 2016a).

Standards and norms are aiming in this context to provide common-ground sets of criteria for comparative evaluation and auditing to determine levels of quality and/or attainment and to foster effective transactions and accountabilities among all actors involved. The ISO 9000-family (ISO.org, 2015) and ISO 30401:2018-KMS (ISO.org, 2018) standards afford this support for organisations’ quality management systems (QMS) and, recently, Knowledge Management Systems (KM/KMS).

Conventional organisational KMS (OKMS) comprise monolithic, centralised, top-down, heavyweight, and high-investment/maintenance technologies whose models serve “a fairly homogeneous set of stakeholders and cultures, surroundings and resources, practices, and objectives” (Schmitt & Gill, 2020, p. 123). This article, in contrast, focuses on an alternative decentralised and knowledge-worker-centric approach favouring personalisation, mobility, generativity, and entropy reduction. The aim of this KMS-under-development (to be further addressed as PKMS due to its personal emphasis) is not to substitute OKMSs but to address their current shortcomings and, hence, to engage in a fruitful co-evolution.

To assist in lining up the PKMS-OKMS-differentials to the new KMS standard is a recently proposed ISO 30401:2018-standard-based “new KM practice system theoretical framework” (KMPSTF). As a panel member of the maiden ISO:30401-developing process, Loon anticipates his KMPSTF to facilitate a “new trajectory in understanding KM as a practice, collectively undertaken in a systematic manner at the organisational level”. He suggests future research avenues for advancing “the scholarly debate concerning the antecedents and predictive utility of KM practice system” as well as for impact testing (Loon, 2019, pp. 8, 22).

Based on these meta-artefacts (OKMS/PKMS models, KMPSTF, and ISO:30401), the aim of this article is to address two research questions: 1) if the ISO:30401ʹs “context-driven theme” (Loon, 2019, p. 11) is providing the depth and breadth to accommodate the novel distinct PKMS elements and 2) how far the PKMS’s cloud-based community approach may be able to qualify for a ISO:30401 accreditation.

The article is structured as follow: The next four sections (2) introduce the research methodology, (3) motivates the case study and illustrative scenario approach, (4) presents a bird’s-eye view of the PKMS concept and (5) the ISO 30401:2018-KMS standard. It follows (6) a detailed analysis and discussion of the ISO 30401:KMS standard’s fit with PKMS’s complementing affordances and (7) concluding remarks.

2. Design science research methodologies guiding the PKMS development

KMS’s research paradigms incorporate reactive behaviours (as in natural and social sciences for understanding reality) as well as proactive design (as in engineering and technology for creating supportive artefacts; Simon, 1996). Complex design challenges may result in longitudinal streams of research undertakings, outputs, and publications presented at appropriate times “in terms of the continually evolving artifacts and design theories”, “early visions of technology impact [and] studies of [applied] technology impact on users, organizations and society” (R. Baskerville et al., 2018, p. 369). Compliance with established DSR guidelines assure problem relevance and utility, research rigour and contribution, design evaluation, and publishability in Information Systems (IS) research outlets (Hevner et al., 2004). Recently suggested DSR submission standards further aim for advancing the evolution of design knowledge bases by introducing three measures (fitness, confidence, and projectability) to better “plan, coordinate, and communicate complex design research activities over time and space” (Vom Brocke et al., 2020, p. 524). An author’s DSR projections may, thus, be based on a projectability serving language/logic or a “worldmaking matrix” which links “actual real worlds” with “future possible worlds” via theoretical-to-empirical/practical or theoretical-to-theoretical projectabilities (R. L. Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 2019).

While an earlier paper focussed on how the PKMS development is carried out according to DSR guidelines (Schmitt, 2016a), a recent article, hence, reviewed the progress made in light of the current fitness, confidence, and projectability concerns (Schmitt, 2021a). The latter also supports the DSR’s notion of “Theory Effectiveness” which requires designs to be purposeful in terms of utility (content) and communication (presentation) to an audience (O’Raghallaigh et al., 2011); it also expects existing and emerging research findings, methodologies and practices to be scrutinised for continuous design evaluation, potential integration, and knowledge dissemination.

As the PKMS’s inner-world artefacts (constructs, models, methods, instantiations, and theories) have been benchmarked against or combined with existing outer-world notions which interpret or address the same phenomena (termed theory triangulation (Noble & Heale, 2019)), the peer-reviewed published outputs are used to populate the worldmaking matrix alluded to (Table 1). It demonstrates that the prescriptive and constructivist content of the PKMS project has been grounded on existing design knowledge and also been validated against descriptive empirical, conceptual, and theoretical research findings (the combined published literature review currently references a total of 507 unique external sources; Schmitt, 2021a).

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

This ISO:30401-related research questions and article fit the top-left, vertical projectability quadrant (theoretical-to-empirical/practical effectiveness). Due to the applicable broad scope of the KMS standard, this article is presented as a case study.

3. Re-interpretating the case study method in DSR/PKMS-related context

A review of 148 journal articles substantiated the essential necessity to rigorously evaluate DSR artefacts. After technical experiments (used in 62% of the articles), illustrative scenarios (14%), and logical arguments (7%), case studies were ranked fourth (5%) among eight evaluation methods identified. However, as case studies follow Yin’s definition of evaluating the efficacy/performance of designed objects in complex specific real-world settings (Yin, 2009), illustrative scenarios extend this scope to artefacts’ suitability/utility within synthetic environment which may include more generalisable or even ideal contexts (Peffers et al., 2012). This expansion relates to the differences between the natural/social and design science paradigms alluded to (section 2) and also accounts for the limitations of this article’s results which have been referred to as a “rigor-relevance dilemma” (Dresch et al., 2015, p. 1118).

The anticipated affordances and projections (as exemplified in Table 1, to be detailed further) have just been reframed as a desirable sustainable (P)KMS vision (Schmitt, 2021b, p. 24). It has guided complementing the, so far, academically oriented PKMS-DSR project with an entrepreneurial counterpart (an innovative start-up venture and investment) aiming to transform the current artefacts and smaller prototypes into a full-scale and commercially viable KMS instantiation.

As the PKMS at this transition stage offers a range of novel “future possible worlds” compared to conventional OKMSs, the benchmarking of the PKMS against the maiden ISO:30401 standard is bound to provide a solid foundation for prioritising development and resource allocations in the upcoming start-up phases. As a first case study of this kind, the adopted process and the positive outcomes may assist KMS developers and KM practitioners as well as researchers in realising their own projects.

4. A bird’s-eye view of the PKMS as a digital platform and DSR artefact

Figure 1 provides a bird’s-eye view of the PKMS. Social actors (left, knowledge workers) who are members of the PKMS community have access to decentralised, networked, individual KMS devices.

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).

These personal PKMSs facilitate iterative workflows (depicted as anti-clockwise cycle) to select, capture, modify, fuse, and voluntary share content which is then centrally synthesised and curated (top-right) before it is fed back to the community members. It may also be repurposed as learning assets to foster personal learning environments (PLE) or self-developmental activity spaces for reusing, remixing, and sharing of learning resources (Rahimi, 2015).

The “fruitful co-evolution” alluded to earlier can be accommodated by interfaces with organisational knowledge and learning management systems (OKMS, LMS) (top-middle-and-right). The areas termed knowledge worker, technology, extelligence, ideosphere, institutions, and society (all in round brackets) represent six distinct PKMS ecosystems to be referred to later.

The PKMSs’ iterative workflows follow the SICEE sequence (seizing, imbedding, collating, encompassing, and effectuating) which are further detailed in Figure 1ʹs table structure (bottom left anti-clockwise flow) and aligned to the OKMSs’ SECI model flows (bottom right clockwise flow), to be also further detailed later.

5. The role of the KMS Standard for the future of KM (practice) systems

In the first high level ISO 30401 appraisal, the authors conclude that the theoretical foundations and literature of the KM and Intellectual Capital (IC) domains are well reflected; however, an organisation also has the liberty to choose from and “implement a wide range of KM processes and practices” drawn from literature (as exemplified by this article) to fit its particular value creation processes (Pawlowsky et al., 2021, p. 17). The scholarly work, unfortunately, “aimed to shed more light on the dynamics which link knowledge assets to value creation remains limited” (Schiuma & Carlucci, 2015, p. 199).

ISO 30401 neither offers related directives nor advice on best practices, but it provides a common language for assisting in these quests and inspires the development of ISO compliant knowledge-oriented extensions for existing, proven enterprise modelling/architecture management frameworks (Kudryavtsev & Sadykova, 2019).

Based on a comprehensive analysis of the KM discourse, Grant, however, identifies potential conflicts “between the interests of practitioners and researchers”, “inconsistent views”, and “raises some questions about the relevance of some of the research being carried out” (Grant, 2011, p. 1), observations well evidenced by studies of success-critical context factors of KM frameworks (Heisig, 2009).

ISO:30401 acknowledges these complexities and calls for managed change processes for implementing “an effective and holistic KMS” and for “a systemic and holistic approach to improve results and learning” (ISO.org, 2018, 3.26, 4.4.1).

KMS design and conceptualisations, thus, may be thought of as a “wicked” problem spaces (Rylander, 2009), and in compliance with DSR’s notion of theory effectiveness, enablers championing conventional OKMSs are well advised to stay open-minded for scrutinising complementing, more integrative and/or generative KMS approaches, like the PKMS.

In this regard, Loon’s “sensegiving reflective insider account” helps “to theorise KM from the new [ISO 30401:2018-KMS] standard” as a “new theoretical framework of KM practice systems” and identifies four major themes (Loon, 2019, p. 1) which considerably differentiates PKMSs from conventional (O)KMS wisdom:

• Enabler-savvy (KM infrastructure/instruments): In contrast to conventional OKMS (section 1), PKMSs employs decentralised, grass roots, bottoms-up, lightweight, affordable, personal applications (Figure 1) networked in a cloud-based digital platform ecosystem (DPE based on (Eck & Uebernickel, 2016)).

• Context-driven (knowledge “type” and KM practices): The PKMS is further substituting the “book-age” document-centric OKMS knowledge storage paradigm in favour of digital-age memetic practices to allow for “digitally embedding and reusing parts of digital documents via structural references” (Signer, 2010, p. 1).

• Performance-led (specific to firm’s context): While firms’ OKMSs primarily focus on explicating individuals’ tacit knowledge to measure, capture, store, protect, share and utilise it “for organizational benefit and independent of the initial knower concerned” (Schmitt, 2019d, p. 4), the PKMS provider needs to host a scalable PKMS community with a broad diversity of clients’ profiles or “gifts” (skillsets & capacities) in distinct environments or “contexts” (problem & content spaces) to fit a variety of their process-related options or “means” (practices & methodologies) for furthering their ambiguous targets or results-oriented “ends” (ambitions & outcomes; Schmitt & Gill, 2020)

• Sustainably-supported (reinforcing “backroom” operations): As current KMS are unable to adequately navigate the recent shift from an era of information scarcity (few sources/channels and high associated costs) to an ever-increasing attention-consuming information abundance, PKMSs follow Simon’s advice that progress in a knowledge-rich world depends on preventing or reducing undesired redundancy (entropy) and on continually improving and exploiting the patterns (negentropy) of the world, so that far less information needs to be read, written, or stored (Schmitt, 2020a; Simon, 1971).

Loon further proposes three essential mechanisms (learning and knowledge creation culture, organisational knowledge architecture for adaptive and exaptive capacity, and “business model” for knowledge capitalisation and value capture) as “comprehensive constituents of KM practice” which “also reinforce one another” in a “virtuous cycle” (Loon, 2019, pp. 16, 19) and which fully apply to both, OKMS and PKMS.

6. ISO:30401 standard’s fit with PKMS’s complementing affordances

The alternative PKMS cycle emerged during earlier DSR phases by connecting the dots of isolated prior ideas (e.g., Bush, 1945; Levy, 2011; Nielsen, 2012; Popper, 1978; Simon, 1971; Usher, 1954; Wiig, 2011); it strengthened based on benchmarks against twelve renowned dynamic knowledge creation concepts (Schmitt, 2019b), and gained further momentum by integrating the conceptional and empirical notions of the three worlds (Popper, 1978), the foraging and sensemaking loops of a notional model for intelligence analysis (Pirolli & Card, 2005), and an extended version of the concept-knowledge-design theory (CKDT; Carvajal-Pérez et al., 2018; Schmitt, 2020c).

A launch of a ministry-approved innovative start-up venture and investment is scheduled (early 2022) to transform current PKMS artefacts into a viable KMS instantiation. Although this article is, hence, “just” based on envisaged system affordances and institution/community profiles, the resulting illustrative scenario, nevertheless, provides a robust case due to the triangulating (Table 1), prototyping, and testing already carried out. The following subsections further investigate the research questions by cross-referencing the differentiating PKMS logics and logistics against the relevant ISO:30401 criteria subsets; the ISO sections are appended to the quoted ISO text passages as superscript^x.y (highlighted in italics). The number of text passages used (#) indicates which ISO sections have been prioritised in this article (Table 2).

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

6.1. Context, organization, and understandings

To determine internal and external issues relevant to its purpose^4.1 and PKMS’s ability to achieve its intended outcomes^4.1, the SVIDT methodology (strengths, vulnerability, and intervention assessment related to digital threats) has been applied (Schmitt, 2018a; Scholz, 2017). It employs a nine-step-heuristic concerned with goals and environments, actors and affiliations, strengths and weaknesses, threat and intervention scenarios, and synergies and strategies. The results confirmed the PKMS’s envisaged organisational outcomes^4.1 and its rationale rooted in today’s accelerating information abundance and the lack of adequate tools which signify presently emerging crucial barriers to individual and collective development.

In line with the stated motivations (section 5), contexts, and outcomes^4.1, the PKMS’s most relevant interested parties^4.2 are individual knowledge workers whose needs and expectations^4.2 include support and tools for aiding their life-long-learning, resourcefulness, creative and/or collaborative authorship as well as their role as contributor to and beneficiary of institutions (defined as “snapshots of a subset of the ideational field that persevere while the network itself continues to fluctuate” (Kanengisser, 2014, p. 2)) and societal performances, independent of space (e.g., developed/developing countries), time (e.g., study or career phase), discipline (e.g., natural or social science), or role (e.g., student, professional, or leader).

These analysed requirements^4.2 incorporate an ICT for Development (ICT4D) Framework and Maslow’s Extended Hierarchy of Needs (Johri & Pal, 2012; Koltko-Rivera, 2006) as well as prior critical assessments of network communities and of social networking services (Cabitza et al., 2015; Mynatt et al., 1998; Schmitt, 2017a). These positive and negative factors and conditions^4.1 only partially covered the wider KMS scope and motivated the repurposing, restructuring, and extending of the means^4.1 reportedly in short supply. By conceptualising a PKM for Development (PKM4D) Framework (Schmitt, 2016b), the prioritised main areas and contexts^4.2 were structured^4.2 and aligned to individual absorptive^4.3d capacity (ability to recognise, assimilate, and apply new valuable information) and performance levels rather than KM needs^4.2.

The PKM4D offers a motivational integrative 12-step-heuristic based on users’ personal and organisational contexts^4.2 by matching their normative ambition levels to related PKMS functionalities and affordances. The top-left coloured areas in Figure 2 depicts the six steps including twelve PKM4D criteria (exciters/delighters) as successive states of aspiration, development, and potential satisfaction versus (vs.) their associated inhibitors and demotivators which represent levels of dissatisfaction, frustration, and detrimental effects linked to presently faced barriers or to the non-accessibility of PKMS-like affordances.

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

The PKM4D (Schmitt, 2016b) facilitates self-reflection and the prioritisation of personal targets as well as interventions in the individual, organisational, and societal capacity development contexts of opportunity divides and knowledge societies. It closely aligns to the digital ecosystems (Figure 2, middle; section 4, Figure 1) which are instrumental to define the PKMS needs, affordances, and the related workflows as well as an overarching PKMS meta-framework with guiding principles^5.2b.

Taking the external and internal issues, context, and requirements of 4.1/4.2^4.3 into account, the potential range and applicability^4.3 of the (P)KMS outcomes are promising. To determine the attainable scope^4.3, an investigation was carried out (Schmitt, 2019b) to identify, evaluate and prioritize^4.3 the most favourable value^4.3 drivers and knowledge domains^4.3 for the organisation and its interested parties^4.3. It took account of established criteria sets to assess disruptive innovations (segmented in product, process, relational innovation and cultural^4.2 shifts; Garon, 2011) and General Purpose Technologies (GPT) (segmented in general purposes, prevalence, input characteristics, and dominant design features; Cantner & Vannuccini, 2012).

GPTs trigger profound transformational changes affecting “both household life and the ways in which firms conduct business” (e.g., language, writing, printing, computing, or internet; Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005, p.1; Cantner & Vannuccini, 2012). The right side (Figure 2) shows the twelve GPT criteria as coloured rows (indicative of their most relevant sub-ecosystem levels (Figure 2, middle). Their positive assessment infers the PKMS’s potential to become a dominant design with wide-ranging disruptive and GPT attributes (Schmitt, 2019b); their subsequent cross-referencing with normative, constructivist, and transformational vision attributes (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014)) also allowed to reframe and document the PKMS scope^4.3 as a desirable sustainability vision (Schmitt, 2021b). This vision also includes a comparative analysis with Bush’s envisioned “Memex” (Bush, 1945) by retracing the DSR journey undertaken and by benchmarking it against a recommended visioneering approach based on a “knowledge-based theory of developing sustainable visions” (Kaiser, 2017).

6.2. Knowledge management system

The PKMS effectively manages knowledge^4.4.2 through systematic activities and behaviours^4.4.2 following the five development stages^4.4.2 depicted as workflows (section 4, Figure 1) of a dynamic anti-clockwise S-I-C-E-E cycle fully covering the prioritised knowledge domains^4.4.2 as digital ecosystems which also closely align to the PKMS’s affordances, procedures, instructions, methods, and measures^4.4.4b.

Acquired new knowledge^4.4.2a (seizing, stewarding) informs a knowledge worker. Previously unknown or unavailable knowledge^4.4.2a may be obtained from desk or field research, learning, own creativeness, or from external sources (incl. PKMS repository). He/she dissects the content and decides which information-structures (memes) to keep as original or adapted version; they are added (imbedding, immersing) to the personal existing knowledge^4.4.2a repository via his/her PKMS device ready to be adapted to new applications^4.4.2a (ecosystem technology).

The newly captured^4.4.3c memes may be refreshed^4.4.3c (revised new version), (re)classified^4.4.3c (new context), and/or redeployed (documented^4.4.b,7.5 in new record or container) by linking them to existing meme sets (collating, collaborating) allowing the user to adapt existing knowledge to new applications^4.4.2a and update private (or semi-independent shared) repositories. This process includes the creation of multi-part memeplexes and knowledge assets and incorporates the reuse^4.4.2b, (re)codification^4.4.2b, application, and improvement¹⁰ of current knowledge for creative problem solving^4.4.2b, better authorship, and/or decision making^4.4.2b (ecosystem extelligence). The PKMS device retains the current knowledge^4.4.2c in an actualised re-versioned state as means to safeguard from risks of knowledge loss^4.4.2c (cloud-based back-ups are optional).

A user may choose to voluntarily share^4.4.2b any of his/her associatively linked and indexed memes which initiates a knowledge transfer^4.4.2b (encompassing, edifying) to the centralised cloud-based “World Heritage Of MEmes Repository” (WHOMER).

The handling of outdated or invalid knowledge^4.4.2d at individual device level rests with the user, but consequences of unintended changes may be eased by any versioning options adopted. Once memes and their relationships have been shared, WHOMER’s central services consolidate^4.4.2b the content and provide further safeguards (effectuating, easing) in respect to curation, archiving, deletion, and updates^4.4.2d (ecosystem ideosphere). WHOMER manages the balance between sharing and protection^5.2f against invalid and obsolete records before its actualised, cumulatively synthesised repository content is offered with associative integrity to the PKMS community (ecosystem society) and its members (ecosystem knowledge workers).

The continuous iterative knowledge flows^4.4.3 depicted provide systemic and systematic^4.4.3 support for the PKMS objectives^4.4.3 and online human interaction^4.4.3a. Knowledge exchange and co-creation^3.23,4.4.3a through these creative conversations^4.4.3a allow for the transforming of individuals’ personal capitals (intellectual, social, emotional capitals and enabling technologies) into community or organizational^4.4.3a (human, relationship, strategic, structural) capitals.

Representations^4.4.3b of these capitals are made up from a range of meme entities and their classification categories (ecosystem extelligence). All entities share a common record structure which may accommodate reusable unique content (e.g., parts of this paragraph, citations, or visuals), aboutness (e.g., article review, wordcount, or author’s profile), permitted structural connections (e.g., links between authors, papers, publishers, and references), intent (e.g., tasks to do), and monitoring (e.g., schedules, to-do-lists, or progress made). Any conventional output can, hence, be recovered and reassembled by activating its specific meme subset with its stored direct lineages and sequencing. In contrast, today’s OKMS document management systems are still over-simplistically modelled “as monolithic blocks of linear content with a lack of structural semantics” and are digitally stockpiled according to an outdated book-age document-centric storage paradigm (Signer, 2010, p. 1).

The combinatorial^4.4.3c scope of the digitally codified knowledge^4.4.3c in the current memetic test repositories includes a variety of content, incl. the PKMS publications with their cited and citing references; personal contact bases and libraries; personal chronological biographies and family trees; cocktail database; directories of journals, universities, cities, regions, and countries; Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) database sets; industrial classification systems; a business plan; standards, criteria, and a self-assessment exercise for a MBA programme accreditation (Schmitt, 2016a).

To support internalising and learning^4.4.3d, the memetic content may be appropriately re-assembled to create learning assets. A collaboration project has been initiated with a Learning Management System (LMS) provider to host a KM/PKM e- learning^4.4.3d course envisaged to provide a range of novel benefits as, for example, to offer non-linear learning experiences or to transfer relevant memes used in the course into the participants’ PKMS devices for learning retention or retraining^4.4.2d and for effortlessly incorporating them into the practice^4.4.3d of lifelong learners (Schmitt, 2016c, 2019c; Schmitt & Saadé, 2017).

6.3. Knowledge management enablers and culture

To create an effective KMS^4.4.4, the PKMS is expected to include and integrate elements of five stipulated enablers^4.4.4 (human capital^4.4.4a, governance^4.4.4d, processes^4.4.4b, technology and infrastructure^4.4.4c, and KM culture^4.4.4e). As the PKMS’s destiny depends to a degree on its status as a potential GPT (Figure 2, right), these enablers, in the context of this article, are focussing on and are re-interpreted as the PKMS’s ability to scale.

Apart from the envisaged start-up team, almost all the relevant human capital^4.4.4a resides within the PKMS community. The former, as any other institution, is about to form (due to recruitment, accountability and assessment^4.4.4a practices) a fairly homogeneous team (section 1), whereas the latter embodies a very diverse collective (section 5: gifts, means, contexts, and ends).

As members’ human capital^4.4.4a forms the foundation, the PKMS community is representing a major force in terms of governance^4.4.4d in need of fit-for-purpose appropriate policies^5.2a. The merit of participative membership to drive the PKMS provider’s future technological and strategic^4.4.4d direction (incl. conceptualisations, policies, service levels, and codes of conduct^4.4.4d) is an essential objective.

Joining such a community depends on the actual/perceived benefits and network effects of “scaling” where a newcomer does not only add value as a member but also adds some value to every other actor in the network, “so each new member in a large network is worth more than a new member in a small network” (Garon, 2011, p. 457).

PKMS knowledge activities^4.4.4b need, hence, to be transparently defined, applied, and embedded^4.4.4b within the community and centralised processes^4.4.4b as well as the external promotional landscape. To serve the latter, a multi-stage appreciation “recruitment” model (Mostert, 2012; Schmitt, 2016b) complements the PKM4D “retention” framework (Figure 2, bottom-left) to structure the upcoming start-up’s promotional efforts (e.g.,: blogs, videos, e-books, pitches). Its six progressive stages each apply adapted versions of the notions of attractive quality (Kano, 2001) and value sources/propositions (Gupta & Lehmann, 2005) and also emphasise specific basic but essential affordances (labelled “vital PKMS provisions”) which current tools fail to provide at all (Schmitt, 2015). The appreciation and PKM4D retention models assist in directing, motivating, inspiring, empowering and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the KMS^5.1; a follow-up publication is in-progress.

A memex-like (Bush, 1945) PKMS application relies on technologies and infrastructures^4.4.4c which allow decentralised autonomous devices to engage in knowledge sharing^{4.4.2b,4.4.4e,5.2,7.4} and creative conversations^4.4.3a between personal human capacities, so that distributed processes of collective intelligence and cumulatively synthesised shared “extelligence” may emerge and, in turn, is able to feed back to the user community (Stewart & Cohen, 1999, p.243; Levy, 2011).

Its technological feasibility has only been assured by the recent advance, affordability, and scalability of development, hosting, cloud-based^4.4.4c and noSQL-database platforms^4.4.4c flexibly applicable across technological environments. It facilitates the integration of tools, virtual workspaces, and mobile applicatons^4.4.4c as well as the portability of knowledge and skills. Able, while moving from one project or responsibility to the next, to carry their own particular PKMS with them, professionals are afforded the autonomy to develop their personal expertise systematically and sustainably and to voluntarily share it with associates and institutions close to them. Further synergies are anticipated with blockchain, semantic web, and artificial intelligence technologies to be further researched and reported on in the future.

Cultural, social, and historical contexts “provide the basis for one to interpret information to create meanings” (Nonaka et al., 2000, p. 14). They are constantly affected by technological development and diffusion, profoundly changing the ways of working and living and causing significant organisational, commercial, social, and legal innovations. “Giving up long-held faiths or abandoning ‘zones of comfort’ and familiarity are not easy” (Garon, 2011, p. 452) and signifies a learning^4.4.4e challenge for both, individuals and organisations.

As accelerating change is causing widespread disintermediation and granularity on an economy-wide scale (incl. knowledge workers’ labour markets and the automated bundling and unbundling of products and services (Bhatt, 2016)), it forms an emerging major disruptive trend which affects all spheres of knowledge activities^4.5, knowledge asset creation, and innovativeness.

The means to prevent granularity from deteriorating into isolation, fragmentation, and entropy is “connectivity^4.5”. As the normative set to resolve which connective ties (e.g., strong, weak, or directional) and interdependent relationships are to be formed, culture^4.5 potentially exerts the strongest influence on the challenging contexts, academics, professionals, and entrepreneurs are facing. Theoretical and empirical evidence has shown that it is trust^5.1 which forms a mutually beneficially bond with collaborative KM culture^4.4.4e,4.5, and recent empirical proof further confirms their strong correlation with knowledge sharing^4.4.4e and performance^4.2,7.2,9 (Kucharska, 2017). Enhancing trust is a key element^5.1 to also increase PKMS adoption rates.

Defined as a “bet about the future contingent actions of others” (Sztompka, 2019, p. 35), trust “cannot be afforded directly but has to be earned by acquiring a reputation of, for example, expertise, professionalism, reliability, or high-quality services/content supplied” (Schmitt, 2017a, p. 69).

As “Promise Engineering” or “Promise Theory” engages in the structural composition of intent and trust by aligning interacting agents’ capabilities and behaviours (Bergstra & Burgess, 2021; Burgess, 2015), it may just be the right approach for complementing the PKMS’s meme-based paradigm; further research in this regard is, hence, commencing.

6.4. Leadership, commitment, policy, roles, responsibilities, authorities

As the productive scaling of a digital PKMS-like platform applies to both, community membership and shared content, a crucial success factor hinges on the unlocking of the potential knowledge value^0.3b of a fruitful PKMS-OKMS-co-evolution.

Figure 3 summarises the key differences between PKMSs (three overlapping circles) and OKMS (grey background) which are personal-opportunity-versus-institutional focus, preservation-versus-generative-innovation-focus, and document-centricity-versus-meme-based-entropy-reduction focus. While the anti-clockwise SICEE cycle (Figure 1) overlaps with the arrangement of the circles and Popper’s three worlds, seven areas of emphasis (coloured and grey rectangles and the centre) and six up-and-down-scaling priorities (black texts) have been identified (Schmitt, 2020c). The synergies to be realised co-depend on how the PKMS affordances can best be aligned to or integrated with the requirements of organisational business and project processes^5.1, how an PKMS adoption and application^5.1 may force managing processes of change^5.1, and how a culture may be cultivated that values, supports and enables KM^5.1,5.2d (OKMS-PKMS co-evolution).

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

Firstly, the PKMS central repository is based on associatively indexed bi-directional structures which afford the forward and backward tracking of related memes including their version and usage histories. While memes are not consumed when utilised and never run out of stock, PKMSs, nevertheless, “operate like industrial supply chains which – as the back-bone of modern manufacturing – rely on as-built-genealogies which document the technical interrelatedness of discrete parts, ingredients and labour to their final products and services” (e.g., Enterprise Resource Planning, Supply Chain and Customer Relation Management (ERP, SCM, CRM; Schmitt, 2019a, p. 15).

Not only is the different storage paradigm familiar to the business world, but a comparable entropy-reducing paradigm shift has also already been experienced in the past: “When the increasing volume (amount), velocity (time-criticality), variety (multiplicity of sources), veracity (accuracy), and variability (change patterns) of data and information overwhelmed earlier flat file databases due to unmaintainable redundancy and compromised referential integrity” (Schmitt, 2020c, p. 9), they were substituted by relational database management systems (RDBMS) with their normalised table structures as proposed by Codd in 1970 (Date, 2006).

Secondly, although ERP, SCM, and CRM are not regarded as KMS, they have been included as operative school together with Earl’s content-focussed system, engineering, and commercial KM schools in Figure 3 (top left red) and his collaboration-focussed cartographic, organisational, and spatial KM schools (bottom left green; Earl, 2001). Earl’s work “remains the most cited paper in the domain of KM taxonomies” and “continues to command the respect of researchers”. It has been used for interpretivist qualitative research to map KM’s future showing a preference for the more technocratic Schools (red) but with an emphasis on empowering human and social interactions (green; Girard & Ribière, 2016, p. 182). Prior articles stressed that the technological and organisational integration of some of these KM Schools (if implemented at all) is lacking, and that PKMSs may, hence, provide a connecting layer for OKMSs (Schmitt, 2016d) or an affordable alternative for SMEs to better navigate their early growth stages (Schmitt, 2018b).

Thirdly, due to unsatisfactory KMS failure and acceptance rates, Pollard even suggested to “go back to the original premise and promise of KM and start again – but this time from the bottom up” by developing processes, programs, and tools to improve¹⁰ knowledge workers’ effectiveness and sense-making, and by focusing on peer-to-peer content-sharing, expertise-finding, and connectivity instead of top-down community-of-practice management and top-down centralised content acquisition and collection (Pollard, 2008, p. 98). PKMSs support these bottom-up concepts/tools by adopting the notion of cumulative synthesis (Schmitt & Gill, 2020; Usher, 1954).

Fourthly, as Nonaka’s theory of organisational dynamic knowledge creation^{4.4.2 a} with its SECI (socializing^C, externalising, combining^4.4.3c, and internalising^4.4.3d) and Ba models (shared contexts or physical/virtual spaces where knowledge is shared, created, interpreted, and utilised) is the most widely cited KM theory (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), leaders are advised to emphasise knowledge visions, assets, and proficiencies as well as personal commitment^{5.1,5.2ce,7.1,C}, trust^5.1,C, and autonomy (Nonaka et al., 2000). PKMSs reenergise these currently neglected KM aspirations; “appealing to knowledge workers’ self-interest in this way means effectively fostering OKM acceptance” (Schmitt, 2019d, p. 4) and prevents knowledge loss^4.4.2.c by stimulating possibilities:

“And when an employee moves out, the person moving in should be able to access the ex-employee’s knowledge infrastructure to continue the operations. Experiential knowledge should not get eroded. Preservation of the circles of knowledge should be independent and the knowledge availability needs to be process-driven, rather than person-dependent” (Shekar, 2021, p. 49).

Shekar’s advice (as an accredited auditor for ISO 30401 certification) suggests sharing part of one’s meme-based knowledge with one’s “virtual institutional sub-personas” (as instantiated ideational fields that persevere while its occupying agents may come and go) allowing for easier transfers targeting positional successions^4.4.2c. The idea, closely related to Earl’s Schools and the notion of “Experience Management” (Schmitt, 2017b), seems feasible and will be taken up for further testing.

6.5. Planning to address risks/opportunities and to achieve KM objectives

The major risks^6.1 identified by ongoing reviews (e.g., SVIDT) are clustered in a matrix cross-referencing discoverable/undiscoverable knowledge with public/private knowledge-related entropies (Table 3, (Schmitt, 2020a)). To address these entropic risks and opportunities^6.1 further, system dynamics, discrete-event, and agent-based modelling has been applied to trace their interdependencies and to evaluate the effectiveness^6.1 of resolving PKMS processes and interventions (Schmitt, 2020b).

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).

In the KM discourse, the metaphorical use of the thermo-dynamic “entropy” concept also finds positive analogies (Bratianu, 2019; Bratianu & Andriessen, 2008; Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019); this “positive entropy” can be equated to a further PKMS-adopted notion termed “generativity” (Schmitt & Gill, 2020). Originally applied in psycho-social models (Erikson, 1950), generativity has become a guiding principle for identifying and fine-tuning the aspirations and opportunities^6.2 for knowledge creation^4.4.2a processes. Four recent generativity-related KM frameworks are totalling twenty-six attributes which are all applicable to the PKMS affordances and ecosystems (Schmitt, 2019a).

As crucial elements of an effective PKMS, the objective^6.2 of the centralised curation^4.4.2d services is to ensure that redundancies and entropies of knowledge shared by the community members are extracted and that the associative integrity of the linked memes is maintained. The optimised knowledge traceability of the content fed back by the WHOMER repository to the community aims for efficient utilisation and, thus, saves users the wasteful expenditure of their finite attention and cognitive capabilities which can then be better spent on more generative or innovative activities.

The WHOMER curation processes, thus, need to compare newly uploaded with its already existing memetic content to identify/merge any replicated memes and to preserve/consolidate all their relationships and usage histories. KM Policies^5.1,5.2,7.3 may require some memes/links to be tagged to indicate, for example, discontinuance or obsolescence; some others’ dissemination may need to be restricted due to, for example, legal, ethical, or falsification reasons; and original records have to be kept for reference so that identical content uploaded in the future from any source is immediately identifiable to trigger appropriate action.

Another PKMS KM objective^6.2 is, hence, to continually improve^6.1,10 and mature this growing interrelated, associatively indexed, multi-disciplinary content into a single unified digital knowledge repository which transforms the philosophical notion of Popper’s abstract intangible inaccessible third world (world:3) into its tangible interrogatable transdisciplinary equivalent (WHOMER). By capturing, preserving, and sharing the human heritage knowledge, this negentropic knowledge base would serve as a tangible mediator and more efficient link between the Popperian world:2 (mental) and world:1 (physical; Figure 3).

An actualised curated WHOMER version becomes available to the PKMS community together with free, pay-as-you-go, or subscribed added-value services which have been exemplified previously (Schmitt, 2020a) and include meme-based research; promising leads and emerging trends; messages to users concerning state chances of their previously used external memes (e.g., update or expiry notifications, endorsements, retractions, withdrawals, or detected falsifications); newly decontextualised mems-sets serving as boundary objects (e.g., templates, heuristics, or frameworks); exclusive meme-transfers from e-learning participation in offerings of cooperating LMS providers or collaborating educational institutions. The benefits and impact^6.2e of these services are measured^6.2e by performance, citation, and reputation metrics to be monitored, communicated, and updated as appropriate^6.2fgh.

The scope of the educational PKMS agenda also aims to support educational institutions and their staff, students, and alumni (Schmitt & Butchart, 2014). This close alignment would help to encourage “the sustainable growth of autonomous capacities in Personal KM” and the establishment of a “personal discipline for collection, filtering and creative connection (among data, among people, and between people and data flows)” (Levy, 2011, pp. 115–116). Accordingly, KM education may be able to contribute key opportunities for thriving knowledge societies, but survey results have highlighted the immaturity in these endeavours so far (Bedford, 2013).

Knowledge sharing, nevertheless, excels, as studies show, with higher job satisfaction (depending on an enabling collaborative culture) which, in turn, promotes knowledge distribution, with, both, becoming strong mediators between facets of institutional performances and organisational culture (Kucharska & Bedford, 2019) which builds upon the strong bond between collaborative culture and trust (Kucharska, 2017) referred to earlier.

7. Concluding remarks

By focussing on the envisaged affordances at this pre-incorporation stage, this article has utilised the relevant sections of the ISO:30401 Standard to articulate how the PKMS and its potential OKMS-co-evolution is strengthening the absorptive capacity, trans-disciplinarity, and ambidextrous fitness of knowledge workers which are likely to also translate into organisational capacities, competencies, and competitive advantages.

The aim of the special issue this PKMS-related article contributes to is “to provide fresh insights about approaches, models, processes and tools of KMS for timely and effective harnessing the potential of the digital era” by applying the research lens and common language the ISO 30401:2018 affords. As the OKMS-related pros and cons of the PKMS philosophy and concept have been discussed in the prior sections (including limitations, contributions, and future work, making full use of the allowed wordcount estate), the few concluding remarks are brief.

As stated in section 5, the KMS standard offers organisations the liberty to pick the KM frameworks they perceive to best fit their needs provided they sufficiently rationalise their choices according to the ISO:30401 accreditation criteria in an audit. Sidestepping the ongoing discourse if a more prescriptive ISO approach would offer more utility, this article has demonstrated that the standard’s structure is able to accommodate approaches even if they quite deviate from conventional KM wisdom.

Theory Effectiveness was introduced as a notion for purposeful DSR ensuring quality of utility (content) and communication (presentation). The personal experience of the author is that the standard’s structure also provides enough guidance and a sufficient scope of common language for making compelling arguments (to convince auditors as well as community members) without having to be overly repetitive.

Failures of KM systems and projects are largely blamed on an overemphasis of IT and a knowledge-as-a-resource approach (Schmitt, 2017b). The ISO 30401:2018 advances a more process-oriented KM focus balancing technological with human skill-and trust-related aspects, content-centric with collaborative needs, and systematic with systemic thinking in order to be better prepared in today’s environment of diverse and changing contexts. Alongside the recent normative, constructivist, and transformational portrayal of a desirable, sustainable, and viable PKMS Vision (Schmitt, 2021b), this more “operationally” articulated PKMS rationale is also meant to add further transparency to the PKMS notion and to share it with a wider audience on the path to convince the critical mass of stakeholders necessary for creating the future PKMS realities described.

Disclosure statement

The author declares no conflict of interest other than intending to make the PKMS system and start-up named ‘Knowcations®’ a viable success.

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.