Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
f
o
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
(
1
)
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
1
0
0
w
e
b
i
n
a
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
w
e
e
k
(
2
)
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
n
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
r
a
t
e
o
f
9
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
p
e
r
w
e
b
i
n
a
r
e
v
e
n
t
(
3
)
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
4
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
w
e
b
i
n
a
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
(
1
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
(
o
n
l
i
n
e
)
w
e
b
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
b
y
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
v
e
n
d
o
r
s
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
2
)
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
p
l
a
y
e
r
s
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
,
s
k
i
l
l
a
n
d
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
w
e
b
i
n
a
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
r
a
t
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
p
e
r
w
e
b
i
n
a
r
e
v
e
n
t
(
3
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
i
n
v
i
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
a
n
d
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
(
4
)
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
i
c
h
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
v
e
n
d
o
r
s
i
n
d
a
t
a
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
B
I
a
n
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
.
e
-
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y
(
1
)
L
e
a
d
t
i
m
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
2
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
(
2
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
r
e
U
S
$
2
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
3
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
h
o
u
r
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
o
e
i
g
h
t
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
w
e
e
k
(
4
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
n
e
w
h
i
r
e
s
b
y
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
e
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
i
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
o
o
b
t
a
i
n
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
c
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(
3
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
w
h
o
h
o
l
d
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
c
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
.
e
-
B
u
d
d
y
a
n
d
B
-
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
S
e
a
r
c
h
n
e
w
t
a
l
e
n
t
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
n
e
w
h
i
r
e
s
b
y
1
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
e
-
b
u
d
d
y
a
n
d
e
-
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
4
.
E
-
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
y
(
1
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
p
a
p
e
r
b
y
1
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
(
1
)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
m
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
a
n
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
e
-
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
m
e
d
i
a
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Summary BSC
for IT consulting
rm under study
Business
intelligence tools
125
B
I
t
o
o
l
s
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
T
a
r
g
e
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
2
)
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
1
0
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
c
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(
2
)
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
(
3
)
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
c
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
w
h
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
5
.
I
T
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
s
k
(
1
)
R
e
d
u
c
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
i
m
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
o
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
o
n
l
i
n
e
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
2
4
7
T
i
m
e
s
p
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
6
.
B
l
o
g
(
1
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
2
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
n
e
w
i
d
e
a
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
i
d
e
a
s
(
1
)
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
n
e
w
i
d
e
a
s
(
2
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
l
o
g
f
o
r
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
s
a
n
d
a
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
b
l
o
g
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
s
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
n
e
w
i
d
e
a
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
7
.
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
f
o
r
u
m
(
1
)
R
e
d
u
c
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
i
m
e
(
2
)
L
e
s
s
t
i
m
e
f
r
o
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
f
u
l
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
z
e
r
o
d
e
f
e
c
t
(
b
u
g
s
)
b
y
3
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
U
s
i
n
g
r
e
u
s
a
b
l
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
b
u
g
s
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
p
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
w
o
r
k
h
o
u
r
s
(
3
)
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
e
a
t
a
f
a
s
t
e
r
r
a
t
e
(
4
)
R
e
d
u
c
e
r
e
w
o
r
k
(
5
)
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
e
f
e
c
t
8
.
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
l
d
(
1
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
2
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
(
3
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
r
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
b
e
t
t
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
B
e
c
o
m
e
t
h
e
t
o
p
t
h
r
e
e
I
T
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
r
m
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d
(
2
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
a
c
c
o
l
a
d
e
s
b
y
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
(
3
)
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
i
n
d
e
x
d
e
l
i
g
h
t
b
y
4
.
5
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
d
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
w
a
r
d
a
n
d
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
c
h
e
m
e
s
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
e
s
t
i
m
o
n
i
a
l
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
(
2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
w
a
r
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
(
3
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
i
n
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
4
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
w
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
9
.
M
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
(
1
)
N
u
r
t
u
r
e
p
r
o
m
i
s
i
n
g
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
t
o
b
e
n
e
w
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
(
2
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
w
h
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
(
1
)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
m
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g
(
1
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
n
u
r
t
u
r
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
d
Table II.
VINE
41,2
126
targets and outcomes to executives, consultants and even clients as the situation
warranted. It was clearly understood by all stakeholders that the rm or client is best
served if knowledge workers aligned their day-to-day activities to accomplish objectives
and to nd new, innovative, and often cross-functional and cross-unit opportunities for
contributing to BI objectives.
Table II is hence a summary of our analysis using the BSC approach. A closed
examination of the rm and its BI consulting for major clients allowed the
recommendation of a comprehensive and continuing communication process (based on
the BSC) to ensure that key actors understood the BI initiatives. In other words, since
objectives and targets were derived fromBSC perspectives and thus aligned to strategy,
the measures of BI were matched with targets as corporate performance was also
tracked. In addition, management could reviewthe BSCquarterly and update it to reect
new opportunities and competitive conditions. It was also found that with the updated
strategic information, management was able to formulate their BI plans and targets for
the upcoming year, including decisions about new BI initiatives and capital spending.
4. Recap of key ndings
This study is an effort to identify the effectiveness of BI tools in an ITconsulting rm. The
concept of BI initiatives and their resultant effect on corporate performance are of
paramount importance in managing corporate performance (Davenport et al., 1998). In so
doing, organisations canleverage BI tools effectivelyandtransformtheir core competencies
into a competitive advantage. Since implementing BI tools as part of their KM strategy,
the IT rm had met half the target for increasing clients corporate performance.
It was a major nding that despite the use of the BSC as a service offering, the rm
lacked a measurement system to manage and guide the effective use of BI tools
internally. Apparently, the physician preferred other means of healing. As well, it was
telling that only two out of nine BI tools webinars and e-Learning were widely
used by professional staff at the rm. Anecdotally, consultants acknowledged that
while they were able to benet from the BI outcomes, they had little condence that BI
tools would help increase their work efciency.
Based on these and other ndings, it was recommended that the rm closes the gap
between the execution and strategy of implementing BI tools. This study further
suggests a BSC to align strategy and execution to increase the effectiveness of BI tools.
This would involve the mapping of each BI tool into the BSC. The organisation must be
aligned around a clear and concise strategy for BI per se and only thereafter can the
utilisation of BI tools be made effective. In other words, the strategy is what feeds the
BSC. Therefore, a strategic planneeds to be constructed whichincludes the identication
of the specic objectives that tell professionals in the rm what to do with the BI tools
and a set of targets to convey what is expected. Measurements must be established for
each strategic objective of BI tools in the areas identied. The measurement criteria
provide the targets which can then be used to determine the level of success in achieving
them. Hence, the organisation that adopts this process through a BSCmay be expected to
increase its corporate performance and hopefully to outperform its competitors.
However, as a limitation of the study, we concede that replicating it in other geographic
regions and business sectors would add to the validity of its ndings. As well,
longitudinal, action research could be performed to test if corporate performance indeed
increases with the adoption of the recommendations derived from BSCs.
Business
intelligence tools
127
Our research using the BSC and benchmarking also revealed that the rm had less
favorable competitive advantage in the following:
.
internal processes such as knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and
knowledge reusability;
.
internal competency such as technical skills and industry knowledge;
.
recruitment of new talents;
.
longer than competitors project cycle time;
.
generation of new and innovative ideas to improve work processes;
.
projects with zero defect (bugs); and
.
nurturing of new leaders (through internal promotions).
The study gives reason to conclude that a fuller implementation of the BSC and
benchmarking (including bench-learning) will guide the effective use of the BI tool
suite to manage the above situations. This, we conjecture, will increase the corporate
performance of the IT consulting rm. Drucker was right! Be it BI or knowledge
management per se, we cannot manage what we do not measure. Conversely, we must
measure what we intend to manage. Lord Kelvin famously stated:
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot
express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; (PLA, Vol. 1,
Electrical Units of Measurement, 1883-05-03).
This article is intended to demonstrate the use of a BSC approach to the measurement
and monitoring of a class of such KM tools. As Takeuchi (1998) implied, practitioners
and executives must go beyond accepting the logic of the wisdom of the commons to
establishing the validity of executing a knowledge strategy with such tools and
processes by rst identifying and then monitoring targets and outcomes. We conclude
that the practice of BI is better served in such a manner.
Notes
1. A more detailed description of this may be found in: www.balancedscorecard.org/
BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx
2. It is disclosed here that one of the authors served as an executive intern in the rmduring the
course of this research and obtained management approval to conduct this study provided
anonymity was maintained.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 107-36.
Anantatmula, V. and Kanungo, S. (2005), Establishing and structuring criteria for measuring
knowledge management efforts, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Big Island, HI, USA, IEEE Press, New York, NY.
Bartlett, C. (1998), McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning, Case 9-396-357,
Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
VINE
41,2
128
Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (1996), Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical
industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 123-35.
Bohn, R. (1994), Measuring and managing technological knowledge, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Davenport, T.H. and Probst, G. (2001), Knowledge Management Case Book Siemens Best
Practice, MCD Verlag, Munich.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Long, D. and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful knowledge management projects,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), Knowledge worker productivity: the biggest challenge, California
Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 79-94.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69
No. 1, pp. 131-7.
Effron, M.S. (2004), Knowledge management involves neither knowledge nor management,
in Goldsmithm, M., Morgan, H. and Ogg, A.J. (Eds), Leading Organizational
Learning: Harnessing the Power of Knowledge, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 39-49.
Epstein, M.J. and Manzoni, J.F. (1998), Implementing corporate strategy: from tableaux
de bord to balanced scorecards, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 190-203.
Foo, S., Sharma, R. and Chua, A. (2007), Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques,
Prentice-Hall, Singapore.
Geishecker, L. and Rayner, N. (2001), Corporate performance management: BI collides
with ERP, Gartner Research Note, available at: www.gartner.com/resources/103300/
103324/corporate_performance_manage_103324.pdf (accessed
July 20, 2008).
Grembergen, W.V. (2000), The Balanced Scorecard and IT Governance, IT Governance, Institute,
available at: www.itgi.org/template_ITGI.cfm?template/ContentManagement/
ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID33582 (accessed July 15, 2008).
Grembergen, W.V. and Bruggen, R.V. (1997), Measuring and improving corporate information
technology through the balanced scorecard technique, IT Governance Institute, available
at: www.ensino.uevora.pt/tmp/cursos/MOSI/sist_e_tec/balScorecard.doc
(accessed July 15, 2008).
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), Whats your strategy for managing knowledge?,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), Assessing your companys knowledge management style,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 392-8.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system, Harvard Business Review, January/February, p. 76.
KPMG International (2000), Knowledge Management Research Report 2000, KPMG Consulting,
London, available at: www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/KPMG&
#x5F;KM_Research_Report_2000.pdf (accessed July 20, 2008).
Business
intelligence tools
129
Kurtzman, J. (1997), Is your company off course? Now you can nd out why like the control
panel of a spaceship, a new measurement tool called corporate scorecard can help you
navigate through a hostile universe, Fortune Magazine, February 17, pp. 128-30.
Lee, J. and Kim, Y. (2001), A stage model of organizational business intelligence: a latent content
analysis, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 299-311.
Lee, K.C., Lee, S. and Kang, I.W. (2005), KMPI: measuring knowledge management
performance, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 469-82.
Liebowitz, J. and Wilcox, L.C. (1997), Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Elements, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Malhotra, Y. (1999), Beyond hi-tech hidebound knowledge management: strategic
information systems for the new world of business, working paper, BRINT
Research Institute, New York, NY, available at: www.brint.org/IMtoKM.pdf (accessed
July 10, 2008).
Massey, A.P. and Montoya-Weiss, M. (2002), A performance environment perspective of
knowledge management, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS-36), Big Island, HI, USA, IEEE Press, New York, NY.
Nickols, F. (2003), Strategy is execution, Distance Consulting, available at: www.home.att.net/
,discon/strategy_is_execution.pdf (accessed July 1, 2008).
ODell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identication and
transfer of internal best practices, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 154-74.
Paladino, B. (2007), Five Key Principles of Corporate Performance Management, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Rao, M. (2003), Leading with Knowledge: Knowledge Management Practices in Global Infotech
Companies, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Ruggles, R. (1997), Business Intelligence Tools, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Sensiper, S. (1997), AMS Knowledge Centers Case N9-697-06, Harvard Business School,
Boston, MA.
Swan, J., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2000), Limits of IT-driven knowledge management for
interactive innovation processes: towards a community-based approach, Proceedings of
the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-33), Maui, HI, USA,
IEEE Press, New York, NY.
Takeuchi, H. (1998), Beyond knowledge management: lesson from Japan, Sveiby Knowledge
Associates, available at: www.sveiby.com/Portals/0/articles/LessonsJapan.htm (accessed
July 15, 2008).
Veth, G. (2006), Map, model and move your key strategic processes, DMReview.com,
available at: www.dmreview.com/issues/20061001/1064625-1.html (accessed July 1, 2008).
Wensley, A.K.P. (2000), Tools for business intelligence, in Chauvel, D. and Despres, C. (Eds),
Proceedings of the BPRC 2000 Conference on Business Intelligence: Concepts and
Controversies, Butterworth-Heinemann, University of Warwick, Oxford.
Zack, M.H. (1999), Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-45.
Zikmund, W.G. (1997), Business Research Methods, The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
VINE
41,2
130
Further reading
Alvesson, M. and Kaarreman, D. (2001), Odd couple: making sense of the curious concept of
knowledge management, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 995-1018.
Gartner Research (2008), Press Releases 2008, Gartner Research, available at: www.gartner.com/
it/page.jsp?id597910 (accessed October 4, 2008).
About the authors
Ravi S. Sharma is an Associate Professor and Principal Investigator in the School of
Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Ravi S. Sharma
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: asrsharma@ntu.edu.sg
Vironica Djiaw is a recent graduate of the MSc (Knowledge Management) programme in the
School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Business
intelligence tools
131
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints