New rationale for the need for CKOs long-term: a systems perspective on observations
| Pages | 337-352 |
| Published date | 14 August 2017 |
| Date | 14 August 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-08-2016-0044 |
| Author | Philip William Sisson,Julie J.C.H. Ryan |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,Knowledge management systems |
New rationale for the need for
CKOs long-term: a systems
perspective on observations
Philip William Sisson
Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering,
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, and
Julie J.C.H. Ryan
Cyber Security Department, George Washington University,
Washington, DC, USA
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to clarify theneed for Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs) and explain how some
recent views on competenciesfor educational guidelines, a Knowledge Management(KM) competency model
and expansionof practice management conceptsmake the need for CKOs clearer.
Design/methodology/approach –This viewpoint was developed in response to recent publications
disparaging the idea ofa CKO. The method used was to extract ideas from published and in-workpapers to
establish the basis for and explain the postulated Unified Competency Theory of KM and its implications
regardingthe need for CKOs.
Findings –CKOs are needed to ensure that all organizationally relevant functions’knowledge and KM
assessments and/or audits are individually complete and collectively sufficient. A risk/opportunity
managementrole also provides justification.
Research limitations/implications –This paper mainly limits its discussion to the papers that comprise
research leading to the Unified Competency Theory of KM, its implications and an updated practice management
model. Other points of view that might substantiate or refute the conclusions have not been addressed.
Practical implications –The KM field needs to better identify KM’s risk and opportunitymanagement
role and functionalimperative. Organizations may need to reevaluatetheir directions with regards to KM and
aCKO.
Originality/value –It extends the concept of practice managementto permit differentiating disciplines. It
providesnew rationale for CKOs.
Keywords Knowledge management, Chief knowledge officer, CKO, Educational competencies,
KM competencies, Practice management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Jim Lee in an American Productivity & Quality Center blog on June 25, 2015 wrote, “Why
Death of Chief Knowledge Officers is a Good Thing”(Lee, 2015b). While this blog made
some good points about Knowledge Management (KM), overall, like many others, it misses
the mark on Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs). This paper attempts to clear up persistent
misconceptions about CKOs. It anticipates the authors’qualitative research results about
KM Practice Management flowing from research into knowledge (Sisson and Ryan,2015,
The authors would like to thank Dr Thomas A. Mazzuchi for his insightful assistance.
New rationale
for the need for
CKOs long-
term
337
Received 24 August 2016
Revised 8 February 2017
Accepted 5 April 2017
VINEJournal of Information and
KnowledgeManagement Systems
Vol.47 No. 3, 2017
pp. 337-352
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-08-2016-0044
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5891.htm
2017), ways to learn (Sisson and Ryan, 2016e), improving educational guidelines by using
competency terms (Sisson and Ryan,2016b, 2016g), a competency-based theory of KM
(Sisson and Ryan,2016d, 2016k), KM mediums (Sisson and Ryan, 2016a) and KM roles
(Sisson, 2015/2016). These sixviewpoints contain concepts which lead to a new perspective
on practice management and the conclusionsin this article.
An adequate KM practice management definition should clarify KM roles and
responsibilities, make clear what is unique aboutKM and provide direction for what needs
to be done. Shortcomings in understanding practice management, an underspecified
practice management conceptand historical representations of the role of CKOs hamper the
clarification of these issues. This paper reviews practice management publications,
introduces genericpractice management concepts and applies them to KM to show CKOs, or
a CKO like function, is necessary.
It also supports Jim Lee’s assertion that KM is an organizational capacity. While the
“complete embedding”of KM within an organization (its capacity for KM) to some may
signal that there is no longera need for a CKO, this paper suggests otherwise.
2. Background
No one should deny that there has been a decline in the number of CKOs from what the
Gartner Hype Cycle would call the “peakof inflated expectations”Gartner (2015). Two data
points confirm a decline in the number of large, corporate, American CKOs. Bontis (2002)
stated “25 per cent of Fortune 500 companies currentlyhave CKOs”. By 2014, Harlow (2015)
(using Dun and Bradstreet as a source) states only 30 functional positions remain at the
corporate level. Lee (2015b) jokes, “It occurred to me that I haven’t really heard of one
[(CKO)] in recent memory”.
From the authors’viewpoint, one contributing challenge of KM is the need for a consensus.
Holsapple and Joshi (2004) state that in two decades of effort, “KM researchers have not provided
a well-integrated framework to the community that would help unify this discipline”(p. 593).
Beesley and Cooper (2008) and Lambe (2011) restated this need. Others continue to decry the lack
of a solution as Dalkir (2013) reports Davenport and Prusak did as far back as 1998.
Besides the lack of consensus, measuring KM is a challenge. Determining a positive business
impact of KM with respect to its cost could make the need for a central KM function discussion
unnecessary. Business impact is receivables, sales, orders, profits or things like “‘advance the
mission’, satisfy customers, or improvebusinessoperations”(Hanley, 2014)–with the first four
examples being well-accepted traditional measures. Unfortunately, measuring KM was ini tially,
and still remains, mostly project measurements –often software examples (Moore, 1999,p.6-3)
or benchmark processes [comparative and subjective indicators (Dhansukhlal and Chaudhry,
2002, p. 27 and 37)]. While expanding Dhansukhlal’s and Chaudhry’s list of six KM approaches
to 12 (some similar, some omitted) Wong et al. (2013/2015)end“hoping that an effective and
efficient KM performance measurement system will be developed in the near future”(p. 254). A
guidebook from current KM project implementation researchers at United States Agency for
International Development by Ohkubo et al. (2013) lists two pages of similar, but validated, in-
practice monitoring and evaluation indicators [clues (Hanley, 2014,p.158)]forKMprojects.
Yet, despite a wealth of indicators, measuring overall KM other than by assessments and
audits, is, at least for KM, an unrefined skill (Grant, 2013, p. 117). Isolated exceptions do exist.
Per Grant (2013),“BP estimated that, in 1998, knowledge sharing cut its costs by $700 million”
(p. 117). Given that BP could quantify the cost of KM, it would be measurable in that year.
The first two factors (lack of clear understanding of WHAT KM is and inability to
measure it in its aggregate) may be part of the problemfor the decline in CKOs. An adequate
VJIKMS
47,3
338
To continue reading
Request your trial