1
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management
Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category
Fábio Corrêa (1), Dárlinton Barbosa Feres Carvalho (2),
Vinícius Figueiredo de Faria (3), Fabrício Ziviani (4),
Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery Ribeiro (5)
(1) Universidade Fundação Mineira de Educação e Cultura, Brasil, fabiocontact@gmail.com
(2) Federal University of São João del-Rei, Brasil, darlinton@acm.org
(3) Universidade Fundação Mineira de Educação e Cultura, Brasil, vffconsultoria@gmail.com
(4) Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil, contato@fabricioziviani.com.br
(5) Universidade Fundação Mineira de Educação e Cultura, Brasil, jurema.nery@gmail.com
Abstract
This study aims to analyze Knowledge Management frameworks and categorize them based on their
specification breadth. A total of 27 frameworks, selected from the temporal spectrum spanning 1995 to
2016 and representative of the field of Knowledge Management, were examined using content analysis.
This research employs a qualitative, exploratory, descriptive, and bibliographic approach. Among the 27
frameworks examined, 12 were identified as descriptive, while 15 exhibited hybrid characteristics.
Additionally, existing typologies lack sufficient detail for successful replication. Consequently, it is
imperative to develop structures underpinned by a conjunctive approach. Such structures should provide
both a comprehensive overview and detailed prescriptions of the “what,” “why,” “who,” “how,” and
“when” aspects of implementing and operationalizing Knowledge Management. The prevalence of hybrid
frameworks is notable within the examined set, highlighting the need for an integrated approach that
combines breadth and depth. Organizations require a sufficiently comprehensive and detailed roadmap to
implement Knowledge Management effectively. This analysis expands upon prior research concerning the
classification of Knowledge Management frameworks and introduces a novel and anticipated approach to
classifying specification breadth.
Keywords: Knowledge management; Frameworks; Descriptive; Prescriptive; Hybrid; Conjunctive
2
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
1 Introduction
Within a production context, two individuals observe the same scenario: a manufacturing
plant where physical inputs undergo processing on a conveyor belt to assemble a specific product.
Their focus is driven by the shared goal of reducing assembly time. Despite both individuals
looking at the same scene, their views are inherently subjective. While one concentrates on refining
the conveyor system, the other envisions pre-assembling certain inputs before they even reach the
conveyor belt. These differing perspectives stem from their intellectual backgrounds, consisting
of past experiences, information, and insights that comprise the intertwined knowledge within each
individual’s mind. This reservoir of knowledge can be harnessed to streamline the assembly
process and achieve the desired reduction in time.
This brief context underscores the corporate imperative to foster Knowledge Management
(KM), as the advancement of businesses hinges on the knowledge held by their associates.
Simultaneously, KM, as a facet of Information Science, presents itself as both practical and
theoretical. It offers a pragmatic approach and endeavors to establish frameworks that effectively
translate into organizational practice. A framework serves as an abstraction of reality, facilitating
the clear expression of a phenomenon and its interconnections. Hence, it functions as a valuable
schematic representation for promoting this form of management while considering its constituent
relationships (Corrêa et al. 2021).
Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that there exists a significant proliferation of KM
frameworks, as “[…] there is no generally accepted for KM” (Fteimi 2015, 1-2). This has prompted
researchers such as Holsapple and Joshi (1999), Rubenstein-Montano (2001), Heisig (2009),
Fteimi and Franz (2018), and Harb and Abu-Shanab (2020) to engage in the task of classifying
these structures in order to grasp the landscape of this management domain. In common, these
classifications, fundamentally forged in information science, explore the specification breadth
nature of frameworks, with “descriptive,” “prescriptive,” and “hybrid” assigned as classification
types.
Descriptive frameworks are those that characterize or describe the elements that make up
KM, such as strategy and people management (Corrêa et al. 2021). The spectrum of framework
3
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
specifications can be broad or specific to some elements (Holsapple; Joshi, 1999). Moreover, the
prescriptive kind establishes procedures (tasks) to promote this management but does not present
specific details of how they should be carried out (Holsapple; Joshi, 1999). For Rubenstein-
Montano et al. (2001), prescriptive frameworks neglect specification of elements due to focusing
on tasks, while descriptive frameworks do not express a consensus on the elements that should be
considered.
The hybrid nature for the classification of KM frameworks was pointed out by Rubenstein-
Montano et al. (2001) as an approach to address the weaknesses of the preceding ones. For Heisig
(2009), hybrid frameworks are a combination of the previous ones that should establish how things
should be done (Weber, 2002). Furthermore, Fteimi (2015) assigns that a prescriptive framework
can be broad or specific, as established for descriptives. Ziviani, Corrêa and Muylder (2018) thus
synthesize these natures.
[...] the descriptive model characterizes or describes the elements of KM, while
the prescriptive one establishes tasks without specific details of how they can or
should be performed; both can be broad or specific. The hybrid type incorporates
the two previous classifications and indicates ‘how things should be done’ [...];
however, it assumes the weaknesses of both. (Ziviani; Corrêa; Muylder, 2018,
11).
Considering these classifications, Fteimi (2015) highlighted a limitation in the presented
classification framework, specifically in its reliance on a limited number of studies for its
development. Fteimi noted that “[…] future research can test its applicability by considering
further literature on specific KM topics and domains” (Fteimi 2015, 12). Given the dedicated
efforts of these researchers and the foundational principle of science in fostering cumulative
knowledge, this study aims to scrutinize KM frameworks and their positioning based on their
classification nature with respect to specification breadth.
The objective of this research is to analyze and categorize KM frameworks based on their
classification nature regarding specification breadth, supporting the development of a novel
approach. This study seeks to identify and address the gaps in existing typologies by proposing a
conjunctive approach that integrates both descriptive and prescriptive elements. Consequently, it
4
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
is expected to enable organizations to manage and utilize their knowledge resources more
effectively by offering a more integrated and practical framework.
The findings of this research are elucidated in this article, structured into the following
sections. Alongside this introduction, the subsequent section delineates the methodological
procedures employed for its execution. Subsequently, these procedures are applied, and the
resulting outcomes are elaborated. Moving forward, a comprehensive discussion of the findings is
presented, culminating in the conclusion. Finally, the references that have informed this
investigation are provided, thus concluding the article.
2 Methodological procedures
Aligned with the objective of analyzing Knowledge Management frameworks to situating
them within their classification context, this research qualifies as qualitative, exploratory,
descriptive, and bibliographical. Qualitative because it is based on understanding the phenomenon
by interpretive means, not making use of mathematization for this purpose. This approach is "[…]
commonly used in Social Sciences, and its fundamental characteristic is the appreciation of the
subjective and variant (not absolute) aspects of the problem" (Barros; Vital, 2019, 10), being
related to what is proposed by this research.
The exploratory nature of this research stems from its aim to establish a heightened
familiarity with the phenomenon. This approach is substantiated by the endeavor to comprehend
the intricate essence of frameworks, encompassing the descriptive, prescriptive, and hybrid
classifications. Thus, “[…] exploratory research is justified when the interest is to deepen
preliminary concepts” (Fossa et al. 2020, 302), that is, to understand nuances of the phenomenon
under investigation better. Descriptive for exposing and articulating the findings and, therefore,
“[…] it raises and describes characteristics of the research object” (Café; Barros 2018, 309).
Additionally, the research adopts a bibliographical approach, drawing from “[…] source
documents already published by other people” (Café; Barros 2018, 309). In this sense, the
frameworks to be analyzed consist of 27 structures, dated from 1995 to 2016, selected by the
5
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
temporal spectrum and/or representation in the field of KM, namely: 1) Nonaka and Takeuchi
(Corrêa et al., 2019c); 2) Davenport and Prusak (1998); 3) Teixeira Filho (2000); 4) Futami (Corrêa
et al., 2019b); 5) Federal Data Processing Service – SERPRO (Ziviani et al., 2019); 6) Probst,
Raub and Romhardt (2002); 7) Bukowitz and Williams (Corrêa et al., 2020a); 8) Angeloni (Corrêa;
Ziviani, 2019); 9) Costa (Corrêa et al., 2020b); 10) Hanashiro (Corrêa; Batista; Ferreira, 2020);
11) Terra (Corrêa et al., 2019d); 12) Cajueiro (Corrêa; Lima; Tolentino, 2020); 13) Petrobras
(Balceiro; Antônio 2010); 14) Pereira, Skrobot and Danielsson (2010); 15) Batista (2012); 16)
Tuamsuk, Phabu and Vongprasert (Correa et al., 2020c); 17) Rojas, Bermudez and Morales
(Corrêa; Ziviani; Carvalho, 2019b); 18) Castillo and Cazarini (2014); 19) Mutuwa and Maiga
(Corrêa; Ziviani; Carvalho, 2019a); 20) Pons, Pérez, Stiven and Quintero (Corrêa et al., 2022); 21)
Fivaz and Pretorius (Corrêa, 2020); 22) Piraquive, García and Crespo (2015); 23) TransCelerate
(Corrêa; Pinheiro; Cardoso, 2020); 24) Bem, Coelho and Dandolini (2016); 25) Sánchez and
Ponjuán Dante (2016); 26) Moscoso-Zea et al. (Corrêa et al., 2021) and; 27) Farías, Mercado and
Gonzáles (Corrêa et al., 2019a).
Content analysis is employed to analyze these frameworks. According to Bardin (1997,
42), this method promotes the “[…] analysis of communications aiming to obtain, by procedures,
systematic and objective description of the content of the messages, indicators (quantitative or not)
that allow the inference of knowledge”. Thus, concerning the specification breadth nature, the
registration units (Bardin, 1977) are assumed to be closed, being descriptive, prescriptive, or
hybrid, and considering that these are mutually exclusive. Thus, the frameworks are interpreted
through a complete reading of the literature mentioned earlier in order to understand and indicate
their nature.
In essence, the procedure is to subject the aforementioned frameworks to content analysis,
enabling the examination of their classificatory nature concerning the breadth of their
specifications and deepen knowledge about these structures. Thus, describing the findings
contributes to Fteimi (2015) further research and with the theme of KM, especially regarding the
classification of the specification breadth.
6
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
3 Results
Among the structures analyzed, the organizational environment of KM framework
applications stands out, such as SERPRO (Ziviani et al., 2019), Petrobrás (Balceiro; Antônio,
2010) and TransCelerate (Corrêa; Pinheiro; Cardoso, 2020). Just as specified before, frameworks
categorized as descriptive comprise structures that describe elements to be considered in KM,
which may consider a single element or several of them. In this sense, Teixeira Filho (2000)
proposal broadly describes KM but represents it from a descriptive and specifically technological
perspective and, therefore, is characterized as descriptive. In the SERPRO instance, the framework
is supported by policies and guidelines to be applied by each organizational unit. Consequently,
the specification does not establish “how” to implement such policies; therefore, the framework is
classified as descriptive.
The descriptive nature also applies to Terra (Corrêa et al., 2019d) framework of seven
dimensions, Pereira, Skrobot and Danielsson (2010, 220) for “[…] presenting the conceptual bases
for a corporate model of Knowledge Management”, and Tuamsuk, Phabu and Vongprasert (Correa
et al., 2020c), which does not present a sequence of process execution. Rojas, Bermudez and
Morales (Corrêa; Ziviani; Carvalho, 2019b) strictly describe the elements of KM, focusing on
technology, without prescribing actions for its implementation; while Mutuwa and Maiga (Corrêa;
Ziviani; Carvalho, 2019a) discuss the dimensions that make up this management, limiting
themselves to positioning them in an archetype, being an imperative representation of the
descriptive type. Angeloni (Corrêa; Ziviani, 2019) work consists of a collection of texts that
discuss the elements of KM and is limited to the essential description of their relationships without
emphasizing how to accomplish it.
In Bem, Coelho and Dandolini (2016), three constructs that interact with each other and
affect the whole are expressed, but the interactions exposed in the model have a descriptive intent;
they describe how the relationship between the elements. The framework description by Sánchez
and Ponjuán Dante (2016) highlights the elements to be considered in virtual learning. It has a
strictly descriptive characteristic, similar to the proposal by Farías, Mercado and Gonzáles (Corrêa
et al., 2019a). Likewise, Moscoso-Zea et al. (Corrêa et al., 2021) articulate how Business
7
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Intelligence and enterprise architecture technologies can be helpful in knowledge discovery, so
categorically descriptive.
On the other hand, the frameworks of Nonaka and Takeuchi (Corrêa et al., 2019c) and
Davenport and Prusak (1998) are presented as hybrids. They explain an archetype with the
constituent elements and explain actions to promote it without any details. This same
characterization applies to the frameworks of Futami (Corrêa et al., 2019b), Probst, Raub and
Romhardt (2002), Bukowitz and Williams (Corrêa et al., 2020a), Costa (Corrêa et al., 2020b), and
Hanashiro (Corrêa; Batista; Ferreira, 2020). Cajueiro (Corrêa; Lima; Tolentino, 2020) describes
the elements of strategy, structure, people, and processes in the context of private educational
institutions and points out steps for conducting the framework, which characterizes it as a hybrid.
Likewise, the Petrobras framework (Balceiro; Antônio 2010) describes some elements of KM and
prescribes procedures for its implementation.
Batista (2012) framework aims to guide public organizations in the KM implementation,
granting the construction of a plan for this management as the central point. In essence, it does not
establish specific tools but a mix of them, in some cases, and the need for reflection on how to
accomplish its intent in other cases. By first describing the elements of KM and, further,
prescribing them in order to demonstrate how to promote the implementation of this management
in an organization, this characterizes it as a hybrid.
Castillo and Cazarini (2014) broadly described the elements of KM (descriptive) and
prescribed procedures (prescriptive), showing the hybridity of the structure. Pons, Pérez, Stiven
and Quintero (Corrêa et al., 2022) promote an unfolding of Nonaka and Takeuchi (Corrêa et al.,
2019c) Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization into activities (tasks),
characterizing it as a hybrid. Piraquive, García and Crespo (2015) framework is a reduced approach
to KM in the context of project management and prescribes some actions, such as the role of senior
management regarding infrastructure, being hybrid, as well as the proposals of Fivaz and Pretorius
(Corrêa, 2020) and TransCelerate (Corrêa; Pinheiro; Cardoso, 2020). In short, Table 1 consolidates
the natures of these frameworks regarding the specification breadth.
8
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Table 1 - Specification breadth classification of Knowledge Management frameworks
Year
Framework Authors
Source
D
P
H
1995
Nonaka and Takeuchi
Corrêa et al. (2019c)
X
1998
Davenport and Prusak
Davenport and Prusak (1998)
X
2000
Teixeira Filho
Teixeira Filho (2000)
X
2001
Futami
Corrêa et al. (2019b)
X
2001
SERPRO
Ziviani et al. (2019)
X
2002
Probst, Raub and Romhardt
Probst, Raub and Romhardt (2002)
X
2002
Bukowitz and Williams
Corrêa et al. (2020a)
X
2002
Angeloni
Corrêa and Ziviani (2019)
X
2005
Costa
Corrêa et al. (2020b)
X
2005
Hanashiro
Corrêa, Batista and Ferreira (2020)
X
2005
Terra
Corrêa et al. (2019d)
X
2008
Cajueiro
Corrêa, Lima and Tolentino (2020)
X
2010
Petrobrás
Balceiro and Antônio (2010)
X
2010
Pereira, Skrobot and Danielsson
Pereira, Skrobot and Danielsson (2010)
X
2012
Batista
Batista (2012)
X
2013
Tuamsuk, Phabu and Vongprasert
Correa et al. (2020c)
X
2013
Rojas, Bermudez and Morales
Corrêa, Ziviani and Carvalho (2019b)
X
2014
Castillo and Cazarini
Castillo and Cazarini (2014)
X
2014
Mutuwa and Maiga
Corrêa, Ziviani and Carvalho (2019a)
X
2014
Pons, Pérez, Stiven and Quintero
Corrêa et al. (2022)
X
2015
Fivaz and Pretorius
Corrêa (2020)
X
2015
Piraquive, García and Crespo
Piraquive, García and Crespo (2015)
X
2016
TransCelerate
Corrêa, Pinheiro and Cardoso (2020)
X
2016
Bem, Coelho and Dandolini
Bem, Coelho and Dandolini (2016)
X
2016
Sánchez and Ponjuán Dante
Sánchez and Ponjuán Dante (2016)
X
2016
Moscoso-Zea et al.
Corrêa et al. (2021)
X
2016
Farías, Mercado and Gonzáles
Corrêa et al. (2019a)
X
Titles: D: Descriptive; P: Prescriptive; H: Hybrid
Source: The authors. Belo Horizonte (2023).
Each structure has a uniqueness and can be specific as to the elements they address, such
as the technological perspective expressed in Teixeira Filho (2000), Rojas, Bermudez and Morales
(Corrêa; Ziviani; Carvalho, 2019b), and Moscoso-Zea et al. (Corrêa et al., 2021), or broad about
such elements, as expressed in Davenport and Prusak (1998) and TransCelerate (Corrêa; Pinheiro;
Cardoso, 2020). Their extent differs in prescription, as some are borderline, such as Pons, Pérez,
9
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Stiven and Quintero (Corrêa et al., 2022), while others have a higher prescription, such as Castillo
and Cazarini (2014), but both are not detailed enough.
4 Discussion
Of the 27 analyzed frameworks, 12 fall into the descriptive category, while the remaining
15 are classified as hybrid. Descriptive frameworks characterize or describe the elements that make
up KM (Corrêa et al., 2021). As an example, the structures of Angeloni (Corrêa and Ziviani, 2019),
Terra (Corrêa et al., 2019d), and Farías, Mercado and Gonzáles (Corrêa et al., 2019a) articulate
the elements of this management without establishing how to promote them in practice.
Commonly, such articulations use schematic representations to highlight what must be considered
in this management and are limited to describing its elements.
Hybrid frameworks, in turn, express the elements to be considered in the KM and describe
them, such as in the descriptive nature, but also prescribe how to operationalize them (Holsapple;
Joshi, 1999). In this sense, hybrids move from representation to operationalization, although not
being thoroughly detailed. An example is the framework of Castillo and Cazarini (2014), which,
from a visual perspective, articulates stages of a process on how to promote KM, but without
providing details. The recommended initial step is to diagnose the internal environment, evaluating
the “[…] organizational elements (business strategy, culture, structure, intellectual capital, current
partnerships, resources, processes and other activities) relevant to KM” (Castillo; Cazarini, 2014,
156). Although this step is pre-established, the detailed statement of how to accomplish it is not
unveiled.
Still, none of the analyzed frameworks solely belong to the prescriptive nature. No structure
that discusses how to carry out KM without first describing its elements was found among the
analyzed frameworks. An example of a framework of this nature is Tom Beckman, published in
1997, as presented by Holsapple and Joshi (1999). In this way, the hybrid nature is settled as an
approach to overcome the weaknesses of the previous ones (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001),
being a combination of descriptive and prescriptive (Heisig, 2009) that should establish how to
perform KM (Weber, 2002).
10
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
However, a gap remains. Considering the descriptive and prescriptive natures can be broad
or specific (Fteimi, 2015) and the hybrid emerges as an approach to solve their weaknesses
(Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001), the analyzed hybrid frameworks still lack better specification
since “how” things should be done are presented at large. The lack of sufficiency of disclosure
requires additional definitions of the framework instances to put KM into operation. Thus, KM
frameworks that fill this gap in such a way to highlight structural elements besides thoroughly
operationalizing were not found.
A way to fill this gap in frameworks specification is to employ tools and techniques from
other sciences, such as administration. For example, Davenport and Prusak (1998), Bukowitz and
Williams (Corrêa et al., 2020a), Terra (Corrêa et al., 2019d) articulate the need to promote the
alignment of KM with organizational strategy, but they do not establish how to accomplish it. In
turn, Balceiro and Antônio (2010) defend the same perspective at Petrobrás and point to applying
the tool Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) inherent to the science of
administration. The appointment of a tool makes the operationalization of this alignment more
feasible for implementation by others, showing an advance in terms of the hybrid nature. However,
this must be presented in all procedures (tasks) for KM, which does not occur in Balceiro and
Antônio (2010), since they do not consider organizational culture in their framework.
Thus, the identified gap in the specification of KM frameworks also reveals a limitation
within the existing classification scheme, given that this scheme was formulated based on pre-
existing frameworks. Accordingly, acknowledging this gap suggests the conception of a new type
for classification required to assign frameworks with a sufficiency of disclosure. This classification
nature, called conjunctive, expects that the specification of KM framework must be broadly
descriptive, elucidating the elements of KM, and broadly prescriptive to elucidate “how” such
procedures could, or should, be performed in practice. Thus, a conjunctive framework assumes the
potential of the previous ones and eliminates gaps present in them, as shown in Figure 1.
11
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Figure 1 - Conjunctive nature characterization for a specification breadth classification
Source: The authors, based on Holsapple and Joshi (1999), Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001), Weber
(2002), Heisig (2009), Fteimi (2015) and Ziviani, Corrêa and Muylder (2018).
The conjunctive type is based on complementarity, with the absorption of the potential of
other types and treating their deficiencies by filling the specification gap. A conjunctive framework
aims to promote a new perspective to be contemplated in KM by presenting a broad description
and sufficiently detailed prescription of “what,” “why,” “who,” “how,” and “when” to do
something to implement and operationalize KM in an organization. To clarify the nuances of these
classification types, Table 2 expresses their characteristics.
12
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Table 2 - Categories of specification breadth classification for KM Frameworks
Category
Guidance
Gap
Author
Descriptive
Characterize or
describe.
It can be specific and is
limited to the essential
description of the
relationships without
emphasizing how to do
them.
Holsapple and
Joshi (1999)
Prescriptive
Establish
procedures.
It does not inform (detail)
how such procedures can
or should be performed.
Holsapple and
Joshi (1999)
Fteimi (2015)
Hybrid
Describe and
establish
procedures for
“how things
should be
done”.
It combines the gaps from
the previous categories,
which can be specific or
broad, and, although it
regards “how things
should be done,” such
procedures are detailed at
large.
Rubenstein-
Montano et al.
(2001), Weber
(2002), and
Heisig
(2009)
Source The authors, adapted from Ziviani, Corrêa and Muylder (2018, p. 12).
While the descriptive nature characterizes the main elements of KM as a whole (broadly)
or in part (strictly), this definition still leaves the gap on how to implement actions to operationalize
them. This gap of the descriptive nature is filled by the prescriptive category, which elucidates
procedures (tasks) to promote this management; however, without specific details on how the
procedures could, or should, be performed, even if such prescriptions are broad or restricted. In
both cases, the gaps reveal the incompleteness of the specifications, making it difficult to put these
frameworks operational in practice.
The lack of specific detailing of the procedures inherent to the prescriptive nature is a gap
not necessarily filled by the hybrid nature since it just sums up the two previous ones – descriptive
and prescriptive – maintaining the essential properties that constitute them. Therefore, the
frameworks analyzed by the studies by Holsapple and Joshi (1999), Rubenstein-Montano et al.
(2001), Heisig (2009), and Fteimi (2015) and by this research tend to present gaps regarding the
13
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
previous natures, even if these are of the hybrid type, attributing relevance to the conjunctive
nature.
5 Conclusion
Driven by the intention to analyze KM frameworks to position them according to their
classification nature concerning specification breadth, this research conducted a comprehensive
assessment of 27 prominent structures spanning the years from 1995 to 2016. The prescriptive
nature was not specifically found; however, it is present in the hybrid nature, as it mixes the
prescriptive and descriptive natures. However, the hybrid assumes the weaknesses of its
predecessors, not necessarily revealing details of how to promote KM.
KM is a practical and theoretical theme, acknowledged as a discipline of information
science, which includes using tools from many disciplines since this kind of management is
grounded in the context of organizations. The theory must advance to foster the specification of
KM frameworks with a sufficiency of disclosure so that others can apply it in organizational
practice. A thorough specification can be accomplished by detailing the use of tools and
techniques, for instance, from other disciplines like administration. Therefore, a conjunctive nature
for KM frameworks specification is required to fulfill the gaps of the other classificatory natures
towards an approach that expresses a broad description and sufficiently detailed prescription of
“what,” “why,” “who,” “how,” and “when” to do something to implement and operationalize KM
in an organization.
The frameworks analyzed in this research express several nuances of KM and already
outline associated processes and tasks. In the meantime, this research contributes to these
structures evolution since it promotes a classification and explains the general modus operandi of
their application, identifying gaps in their specification. Besides, it raises awareness of a new
nature to be considered in classifying frameworks in this theme. Thus, the adjustment of existing
frameworks and the proposal of a new one with a sufficiency of disclosure, supported by the
conjunctive nature, are suggestions for future research.
14
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
References
Balceiro, Raquel Borba; Antônio, José Augusto Carrinho. Implantação da gestão do conhecimento: um
estudo de caso em uma empresa de energia. In: Rodriguez, Martius Vicente Rodriguez y (org).
Gestão do conhecimento e inovação nas empresas. Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark Editora, p. 69-94,
2010.
Bardin, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1977.
Barros, Camila Monteiro de; Vital, Luciane Paula. Abordagens metodológicas das pesquisas em
organização e representação do conhecimento no contexto brasileiro. RDBCI: Revista Digital de
Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, v. 17, p. 1-16, 2019.
Batista, Fábio Ferreira. Modelo de gestão do conhecimento para a administração pública brasileira: como
implementar a gestão do conhecimento para produzir resultados em benefício do cidadão. Instituto
de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada – IPEA. 2012. Disponível em:
http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/754. Acesso em: 31 jul. 2017.
Bem, Roberta Moraes; Coelho, Christianne Coelho de Souza Reinisch; Dandolini, Gertrudes Aparecida.
Knowledge management framework to the university libraries. Library Management, v. 37, n. 4/5,
p. 221-236, 2016. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2016-0005.
Café, Lígia Maria Arruda; Barros, Camila Monteiro de. Abordagens metodológicas das pesquisas sobre
organização da informação musical. Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação, v. 14,
n. 3, p. 304-323, 2018.
Castillo, Lucio Abimael Medrano; Cazarini, Edson Walmir. Integrated model for implementation and
development of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 12, n.
2, p. 145-160, 2014. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp. 2012.49.
Corrêa, Fábio A Gestão do Conhecimento holística e a aderência do modelo Fivaz e Pretorius.
Transinformacao, v. 32, p. 3-9, 2020.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Bukowitz e
Williams. Perspectivas em Gestão & Conhecimento, v. 10, p. 101-130, 2020a.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Costa
(2005). Comunicação & Informação, v. 23, p. 1-21, 2020b.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Farías,
Mercado e Gonzáles (2016). Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação, v. 15, p. 247-
264, 2019a.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Futami
(2001). Revista Gestão e Tecnologia, v. 19, p. 207-230, 2019b.
15
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Nonaka e
Takeuchi (1997). Ciência da Informação, v. 48, p. 144-158, 2019c.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Pons, Pérez,
Stiven e Quintero. In: Aguiar Filho, A. S. et al. (Org.). Governança, Sistemas de Informação e
Gestão do Conhecimento. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Letras e Versos, 2022, p. 67-90.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Terra (2005).
Sinergia (FURG), v. 23, p. 35-48, 2019d.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Tuamsuk,
Phabu e Vongprasert (2013). INCID: Revista de Documentação e Ciência da Informação, v. 10,
p. 115-137, 2020c.
Corrêa, Fábio et al. The Holistic Knowledge Management: adherence analysis of the Moscoso-Zea,
Luján-Mora, Cáceres and Schweimanns model. NAVUS Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, v. 11,
p. 1-12, 2021.
Corrêa, Fábio; Batista, Jonathas Antunes; Ferreira, Eric de Paula. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística:
análise de aderência do modelo de Hanashiro. GEPROS.Gestão da Produção, Operações e
Sistemas, v. 15, p. 204-226, 2020.
Corrêa, Fábio; Lima, Leandro Cearenço; Tolentino, Renata de Sousa da Silva. A Gestão do
Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Cajueiro. Perspectivas em Ciência da
Informação, v. 25, p. 192-217, 2020.
Corrêa, Fábio; Pinheiro, Marta Macedo Kerr; Cardoso, Ana Maria Pereira. A Gestão do Conhecimento
holística: análise de aderência do modelo da TransCelerate. Informação & Informação, v. 25, p.
346-372, 2020.
Corrêa, Fábio; Ziviani, Fabrício; Carvalho, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres. A Gestão do Conhecimento
holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Mutuwa e Maiga. RECIIS - Revista Eletrônica de
Comunicação, Informação & Inovação em Saúde, v. 13, p. 608-617, 2019a.
Corrêa, Fábio; Ziviani, Fabrício. A Gestão do Conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo de
Angeloni (2002). International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Management, v. 8, p. 1-25,
2019.
Corrêa, Fábio; Ziviani, Fabrício; Carvalho, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres. A Gestão do Conhecimento
holística: análise de aderência do modelo de Rojas, Bermudez e Morales (2013). Revista Cubana
de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, v. 30, p. 1-13, 2019b.
Davenport, Thomas H.; Prusak, Laurence. Conhecimento organizacional: como as organizações
gerenciam o seu capital intelectual. 11. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1998.
16
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Fossá, Maria Ivete Trevisan et al. Retrato de uma década de pesquisa do POSCOM/UFSM: um olhar para
a produção científica da linha Mídia e Estratégias Comunicacionais. Animus. Revista
Interamericana de Comunicação Midiática, v. 19, n. 40, p. 295-313, 2020.
Fteimi, Nora. Analyzing the Literature on Knowledge Management Frameworks: Towards a Normative
Knowledge Management Classification Schema. In: 23th European Conference on Information
Systems - ECIS. Anais... ECIS. 2015.
Fteimi, Nora; Lehner, Franz. Analysing and classifying knowledge management publications - a proposed
classification scheme. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 22, n. 7, p.1527-1554, 2018.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0284
Harb, Yousra; Abu-Shanab, Emad. A descriptive framework for the field of knowledge management.
Knowledge and Information Systems, v. 62, n. 12, p. 4481-4508, 2020.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-020-01492-x
Heisig, Peter. Harmonisation of knowledge management - comparing 160 KM frameworks around the
globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, n. 4, p. 4-31, 2009.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971798
Holsapple, Clyde W.; Joshi, Kshiti D. Description and analysis of existing knowledge management
frameworks. In: HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCESHICSS,
32.,1999, Maui. Anais...USA: IEEE, 1999.
Pereira, Heitor José; Skrobot, Luiz Cláudio; Danielsson, Marinês. Gestão do conhecimento: um modelo
corporativo integrado com foco na competitividade e sustentabilidade organizacional. In:
Rodriguez, Martius Vicente Rodriguez y. y (org). Gestão do conhecimento e inovação nas
empresas. Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark Editora, p. 213-233, 2010.
Piraquive, F Flor Nancy Díaz; García, Víctor Hugo Medina; Crespo, Rubén González. Knowledge
management model for project management. In: International Conference on Knowledge
Management in Organizations, 10., 2015. Slovênia. Anais... Maribor: Slovênia, 2015. p. 235-247.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21009-4_18
Probst, Gilbert; Raub, Steffen; Romhardt, Kai. Gestão do conhecimento: os elementos construtivos do
sucesso. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2002.
Rubenstein-Montano, Bonnie et al. A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision
Support Systems, v. 31, n. 1, p. 5-16, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00116-0
Sánchez, Ileana Regla Alfonso; Ponjuán Dante, Gloria. Diseño de un modelo de gestión de conocimiento
para entornos virtuales de aprendizaje en salud. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la
Salud, v. 27, n. 2, p. 138-153, 2016.
Teixeira Filho, Jayme. Gerenciando conhecimento. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: SENAC, 2000.
17
CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício;
RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. Classifying the Breadth of Knowledge Management Frameworks:
towards the conjunctive category. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, vol.18,
publicação contínua, 2024, e024026. DOI: 10.36311/1981-1640.2024.v18.e024026.
Ziviani, Fabrício et al. A gestão do conhecimento holística: análise de aderência do modelo do serviço
federal de processamento de dados (SERPRO) do Brasil. Encontros Bibli, v. 24, p. 78-90, 2019.
Ziviani, Fabrício; Corrêa, Fábio; Muylder, Cristiana Fernandes de. A gestão do conhecimento rumo a uma
abordagem holística: indicação de aspectos a serem contemplados em modelos de gerenciamento
do conhecimento. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, v. 17,
p. 1-28, 2018.
Copyright: © 2024 CORRÊA, Fábio; CARVALHO, Dárlinton Barbosa Feres; FARIA, Vinícius Figueiredo
de; ZIAVIANI, Fabrício; RIBEIRO, Jurema Suely de Araújo Nery. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), which
permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, under the identical terms, and provided the
original author and source are credited.
Received: 27/06/2024 Accepted: 05/08/2024