The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of some guidelines to evaluate new knowledge management (KM) models and frameworks, by means of the presentation and analysis of The New Knowledge Management, a model developed by the North‐American consultants Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy, and the associated knowledge life cycle.
This is an analysis that encompasses epistemological issues and KM theory, intending to review some fundamental concepts and make comparisons to preeminent works. The KM framework examined is grounded on the philosopher Popper's ideas and has in its core the process of knowledge claim validation, which distinguishes it from other information‐oriented approaches. Based on the guidelines pointed, some of the aspects of the KM model exposed are outlined and criticized, among them the difficulty of establishing a meta‐theory that could support the judgment of diverse knowledge claims.
The guidelines found useful to analyze KM models are: the observance of the adopted scope, the concern over the fundamental concepts, the extension of the employed interdisciplinary procedures, the authors' intentions and background, and the possible comparisons and analogies to concepts and theories of related fields.
Many KM solutions and practices are implemented in the organizations without a solid theoretic background. The guidelines can help to choose from the myriad KM models and frameworks that show up uninterruptedly.
The paper focuses on providing methodological means to analyze and evaluate new KM models, not on merely discussing one of them.
CitationDownload as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited