Management Decision

Developing an architecture model for enterprise knowledge: An empirical study based

on the Zachman framework in Iran
Mostafa Jafari Peyman Akhavan Elham Nouranipour
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mostafa Jafari Peyman Akhavan Elham Nouranipour, (2009),"Developing an architecture model for
enterprise knowledge", Management Decision, Vol. 47 Iss 5 pp. 730 - 759
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740910960097
Downloaded on: 24 February 2016, At: 12:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2315 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Shirley Gregor, Dennis Hart, Nigel Martin, (2007),"Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy
and IS/IT alignment in government", Information Technology & People, Vol. 20 Iss 2 pp. 96-120 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840710758031
Oscar Barros, Cristian Julio, (2011),"Enterprise and process architecture patterns", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 598-618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151111149447
Abrizah Abdullah, A.N. Zainab, (2008),"The digital library as an enterprise: the Zachman approach", The
Electronic Library, Vol. 26 Iss 4 pp. 446-467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640470810893729

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368933 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD
47,5 Developing an architecture model
for enterprise knowledge
An empirical study based on the Zachman
730 framework in Iran
Mostafa Jafari, Peyman Akhavan and Elham Nouranipour
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran, Iran
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The main objective of this paper is to explore the role of knowledge architecture in an
enterprise and to provide a model to architect enterprise knowledge based on the Zachman framework.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual article providing a knowledge architecture
model for an organization based on the Zachman framework that discussed several perspectives from
the knowledge management point of view and information technology. To confirm the validity of the
model a questionnaire was designed, applied and then analyzed by some statistical methods.
Findings – The paper provides a conceptual knowledge architecture model that can be applied to
Iranian organizations practically. The validity of this model is confirmed by polling the opinion of
knowledge architecture experts.
Research limitations/implications – The lack of resources directly related to the subject of the
research, the novelty of this kind of research in Iran and the lack of organizations which perform a
knowledge architecture model in reality are the restrictions of this research. The authors’ suggestion
for further research studies is to execute the model and survey from foreigner experts.
Practical implications – The paper may be beneficial for enterprise architects in the knowledge
area.
Originality/value – The paper may be of high value to researchers in the knowledge management
field and to practitioners involved with KM adoption in the organizations. It gives valuable
information and guidelines that hopefully will help the leaders and the senior knowledge management
managers to accomplish KM through their organization successfully.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge mapping, Iran
Paper type Research paper

Management Decision
Vol. 47 No. 5, 2009
pp. 730-759
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740910960097
1. Introduction
Although theoretical underpinning is yet fragile, knowledge management (KM) has
attracted increasing attention from academicians and practitioners alike (Kakabadse
et al., 2001; Bergeron, 2003). The spectrum of KM is so ample, encompassing both
organizational aspects and technical factors (Kang et al., 2003).
Knowledge management architecture makes the general model of the knowledge
management’s technical infrastructure available; in other words, the set of systems,
technologies and connections which offers a framework to protect the technology of
enterprise knowledge management. Knowledge management architecture comprises
both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge and should be designed to support both
enterprise architecture and information architecture.
John Zachman, one of the pioneers of information systems architecture, believes in
the analysis of the organization based on an architectural framework. He believes that
the injection of information technology into an organization without utilizing an
 architectural framework will cause several expenditures of systems’ development and Enterprise
maintenance and the conversion of systems and data and incoherency with the new knowledge
technologies for the organization. In the Zachman framework a two dimensional
matrix (people and operations) is presented which is a powerful implement to analyze
the Efficiency of software engineering products.
The main purposes of this article are:
.
Appointment of the features of an enterprise knowledge architecture model. 731
.
Appointment of knowledge architecture’s framework and process based on the
Zachman framework.
.
Presentation of a way to achieve knowledge architecture by using the Zachman
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

framework to establish the knowledge management system in an organization.

2. Knowledge management
The result of the knowledge revolution is represented by the new economy or the
knowledge-based economy, which is radically different from the previous economy
types known by mankind. Essentially, the knowledge-based economy is characterized
by the conversion of knowledge into essential raw material, capital, products,
production factors of the economy and through economic processes within which such
activities as generating, selling, buying, learning, storing, developing, sharing and
protecting the knowledge become a predominant and decisive condition for profit
generation and the long-term durability for the organizations (Jafari et al., 2007a, b).
On the other hand, there is an agreement that the knowledge-based society has
arrived, and those organizations that will succeed in the global information society are
those which can identify, value, create and evolve their knowledge assets (Rowley,
1999; Lai, 2007). Many argue that knowledge has become the main competitive tool for
many businesses (Berawi and Woodhead, 2005). Drucker (1993) has described
knowledge, rather than capital or labor as the only meaningful economic resource in
the knowledge society, and Senge (1990) has warned that many organizations are
unable to function as knowledge based organizations, because they suffer from
learning disabilities. Companies must innovate or die, and their ability to learn, adapt
and change becomes a core competency for survival. The forces of technology,
globalization and the emerging knowledge economy are creating a revolution that is
forcing organizations to seek new ways to reinvent themselves.
Knowledge management can be established and implemented in every part of the
organization including all departments and sub departments; and even it can be
considered and generalized from micro level in the organization to a macro level in a
country, that can facilitates knowledge based development (Akhavan et al., 2006).
Refocusing of attention on the complex nature of organizations is enhanced by a
situated approach to change (Orlikowski, 1996), emphasizing a practice-based
perspective. Small but continuous, incremental and cumulative change can be very
significant and “is often realized through the ongoing variations which emerge
frequently, even imperceptibly, in the slippages and the improvisations of everyday
activity”. Thus, organizational change is not “an on-off phenomenon” (Weick and
Quinn, 1999), for organizational routines are not stable, repeatable, patterns of behavior
that are maintained from one iteration to the next but are “emergent accomplishments
. . . they are flows of connected ideas actions and outcomes” (Feldman, 2000).
 MD Defining the concept of KM is difficult, as different perspectives or schools of KM
47,5 can yield different dimensions and meaning (Maier and Hädrich, 2006). For example:
.
Malhotra (2000) holds that KM “embodies organizational processes that seek
synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of
information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human
beings”;
732 .
Coombs and Hull (1998) classified KM activities under three major headings:
“knowledge processing, knowledge domains and knowledge formality”;
.
for Bukowitz and Williams (1999), KM is “the process by which the organization
generates wealth from its intellectual or knowledge-based assets”;
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

.
empirical survey by Chong et al. (2000) has identified it as “a process of
leveraging and articulating skills and expertise of employees, supported by
information technology”;
.
Bhatt (2001) sees knowledge management as “a process of knowledge creation,
validation, presentation, distribution and application”;
.
in the eyes of corporate players such as Jim Botkin, President of Interclass, he
associates KM with “communications, capturing of best-yet practices and
sharing for reuse what has worked before”; and
. a more formal definition of KM given by The American Productivity and Quality
Center, is “the strategies and processes of identifying, capturing, and leveraging
knowledge” (Yahya and Goh, 2002).

Further, Marwick mentioned that the whole set of knowledge management activities
accommodates the organization to focus on problem solving, dynamic learning,
strategic planning and decision making by gaining, maintaining, transferring and
utilizing the knowledge (Marwick, 2001).
Although the above definitions vary in their description of KM, there seems to be a
consensus of treating KM as a process of leveraging of knowledge as the means of
achieving innovation in process and products/services, effective decision-making, and
organizational adaptation to the market. Perhaps the definitions will give a more
complete understanding of KM if it is linked with the organizational knowledge
management system (OKMS). OKMS could be viewed as a system that enhances
organizational learning through facilitation of knowledge (both tacit and explicit)
exchange and sharing.
Moreover, the full implementation of knowledge management has significant
consequences for the structure and culture of the organization, and the roles of
managers and workers (Choi et al., 2008). There are a number of questions that
senior managers should seek to answer before moving to a full implementation of
knowledge management (Rowley, 1999):
(1) What is the central objective of knowledge management within an
organization? Is the interest, for example, in leveraging implicit knowledge,
retaining knowledge of employees as they exit the organization, or in more
efficient access to knowledge repositories?
(2) What are the levels at which knowledge management must be considered, and
how can it be executed at the different levels? Can knowledge management be
 utilized for specific projects or work groups, without impacting upon the entire Enterprise
organization? knowledge
(3) What is the scope of knowledge management in relation to the types of
knowledge that it should embrace? The main divide is between implicit and
explicit knowledge, but there may also be different types of focus. For example,
the emphasis may be on competitor profiles, or on technical know-how.
(4) What are the technologies and techniques to be employed in knowledge
733
management? Is the priority document creation and management technologies
or on group working technologies, such as Lotus Notes?
(5) What organizational roles are needed to support knowledge management, and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

what are the associated competencies that both individuals and organization
need to acquire? Organizations have recognized that successful knowledge
management initiatives depend on the commitment of top management, and the
contribution of senior consultants or experts.

Ernst & Young have found two key roles:

(1) The database content manager is a subject-matter expert who is responsible for
the quality of the content.
(2) The knowledge network coordinator is a consultant or coach to the people in the
network, and their main role is to drive change in the way in which people do
their jobs.

There will be no simple answers to these questions because in a diverse and changing
business environment, the nature of knowledge management is likely to be ever
changing. Indeed knowledge management in different organizations may serve
different organizational purposes.
However, there is no doubt that organizations need to develop the capacity to be
able to survive in a knowledge-based, global marketplace. Therefore, an understanding
of the potential offered by knowledge management and the way in which knowledge
management can be used effectively within their business will become increasingly
crucial for businesses and other organizations.

3. Knowledge architecture
Reviewing the critical success factors to establish a knowledge management program,
four topics are remarkable: culture, knowledge architecture, information technology
infrastructure and supportive services (Chatterjee, 2002; Holm et al., 2006). Since
knowledge management addresses the generation, representation, storage, transfer
and transformation of knowledge (Hedlund, 1994), the knowledge architecture is
designed to capture knowledge and thereby enable the knowledge management
processes to take place (Wickramasinghe, 2003).
Knowledge architecture is required to assure the successful implementation of a
short period or a long period knowledge management program (Tang et al., 2004). In
other words, the marshalling of tacit knowledge and the use of proximity (Boschma,
2005) for competitive gains needs a specific institutional frame, a specific “knowledge
architecture” (Evers, 2008).
 MD A knowledge architecture emerges on the basis of knowledge (Chay et al., 2005;
47,5 Chay et al., 2007). Knowledge flows and knowledge depositories constitute the
knowledge architecture of an organization. A “knowledge architecture” is therefore a
property of an organization (Evers, 2008).
However, there is a popular definition for knowledge architecture as follows
(Lasnik, 2000):
734 Knowledge architecture specifies the place and the method of acquirement and transference
of enterprise knowledge. It includes both of tacit and explicit knowledge and is designed to
support both information architecture and business architecture thoroughly. In other words,
knowledge architecture includes the manner of knowledge creation, knowledge application
and the way in which the organization learns.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Thus, the components of knowledge architecture are (Figure 1): people (the
organizational staff especially knowledge workers, knowledge writers and
knowledge owners), processes (the processes that knowledge workers use to achieve
the organization’s mission and goals), behaviors (knowledge worker behaviors which
has effect on the environment and context in which KM process must occur),
technology (the information technology that facilitates the identification, creation and
diffusion of knowledge among organizational elements within and across enterprises,
for instance an enterprise portal) and content (the corporate knowledge base that is
captured electronically (Chevron, 2001; Snyman and Kruger, 2004).
Otherwise, underlying the knowledge architecture is the recognition of the binary
nature of knowledge; namely its objective and subjective components. Knowledge can
exist as an object, in essentially two forms – explicit or factual knowledge – and tacit
or “know how” (Polyani, 1958, 1966; Gupta and Sharma, 2004). It is well established
that while both types of knowledge are important, tacit knowledge is more difficult to
identify and thus manage (Nonaka, 1994, 1991; Gupta and Sharma, 2004). Furthermore,
objective knowledge can be located at various levels, e.g. the individual, group or
organization (Hedlund, 1994; Kanter, 1999). Of equal importance, though perhaps less
well defined, knowledge also has a subjective component and can be viewed as an

Figure 1.
Knowledge architecture
components
 ongoing phenomenon, being shaped by social practices of communities (Boland and Enterprise
Tenkasi, 1995). knowledge
The objective elements of knowledge can be thought of as primarily having an impact
on process while the subjective elements typically impact on innovation. Both effective
and efficient processes, as well as the function of supporting and fostering innovation,
are key concerns of knowledge management in theory (Wickramasinghe, 2003).
Thus, knowledge architecture recognizes these two different yet key aspects of 735
knowledge and provides the blueprint for an all-encompassing KMS. Clearly then,
knowledge architecture is defining a KMS that supports both objective and subjective
attributes of knowledge. Thus, we have an interesting duality in knowledge
management that draws upon two distinct philosophical perspectives, namely, the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Lockean/Leibnitzian standpoint (Malhotra, 2000) and the Heglian/Kantian stream

(Wickramasinghe and Mills, 2001). Models of convergence and compliance that make
up one side are grounded in a Lockean/Leibnitzian tradition (Wickramasinghe and
Mills, 2001; Gupta and Sharma, 2004). These models are essential to provide the
information processing aspects of knowledge management, most notably by enabling
efficiencies of scale and scope and thus supporting the objective view of knowledge
management. In contrast, the other side provides agility and flexibility in the tradition
of a Hegelian/Kantian perspective. Such models recognize the importance of
divergence of meaning which is essential to support the “sense-making,” subjective
view of knowledge management.
Ultimately knowledge architecture delineates the structure of organizational
knowledge base, the essential knowledge sources and the way in which the knowledge
components is associated and connected (de Gooijer, 2000). Moreover, knowledge
architecture specifies the way in which information converted to knowledge and
transferred and connected. Besides, knowledge architecture is more than description of
organizational knowledge; which means knowledge architecture is connected to an
enterprise’s general strategy.

4. Information architecture
Organizing functionality and content into a structure that people are able to navigate
intuitively does not happen by chance. Organizations must recognize the importance of
information architecture or else they run the risk of creating great content and
functionality that no one can ever find. Effective information architecture enables
people to step logically through a system being confident they are getting closer to the
information required. Most people only notice information architecture when it is poor
and stops them from finding the information they require (Horton, 1989; Barker, 2005).
The concept of information architecture is explored as a fundamental building block
underlying the development of effective information systems. Information architecture
is a personnel-, organization- and technology-independent profile of the major
information categories used within an enterprise (Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1986). The
profile shows how the information categories relate to business processes and how the
information categories must be interconnected to facilitate support for decision
makers. Much of the material presented is based on the results of work with a panel of
experts. The panel was made up of senior IS executives who have developed,
implemented and maintained global/corporate information architectures (Brancheau
and Wetherb, 1986). Information architecture is most commonly associated with
 MD websites and intranets, but it can be used in the context of any information structures
47,5 or computer systems (Barker, 2005).
Besides, information architecture addresses key considerations for both the current
and future states of information processing. It makes it possible to articulate in
common terms the needs of stakeholders, as well as the semantics of behavior of the
system and its parts. Sound information architecture allows for full support of
736 distributed processing, interoperability across heterogeneous systems and
departments, and internetworking between systems (Barker, 2005). Of course,
Standardization of processes and knowledge architecture is critical to achieving the
promised return on investment (RoI) from internet-based information technology.
The term “information architecture” was first coined by Richard Saul Wurman in
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

1975. Wurman was trained as an architect, but became interested in the way
information is gathered, organized and presented to convey meaning (Barker, 2005;
White, 2004). Wurman’s initial definition of information architecture was “organizing
the patterns in data, making the complex clear”. The term was largely dormant until in
1996 it was seized upon by a couple of library scientists, Lou Rosenfeld and Peter
Morville. They used the term to define the work they were doing structuring
large-scale websites and intranets. In Information Architecture for the World Wide
Web: Designing Large-Scale Web Sites they define information architecture as:
.
The combination of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an
information system.
.
The structural design of an information space to facilitate task completion and
intuitive access to content.
.
The art and science of structuring and classifying web sites and intranets to help
people find and manage information.
.
An emerging discipline and community of practice focused on bringing
principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape.

Today Wurman’s influence on information architecture is fairly minimal, but many of

the metaphors used to describe the discipline echo the work done by architects. For
example, information architecture is described as the blueprint developers and
designers use to build the system.
The most common problem with information architectures is that they simply
mimic a company’s organizational structure. Although this can often appear logical
and an easy solution for those involved in defining the architecture, people using
systems (even intranets) often don’t know or think in terms of organizational structure
when trying to find information.
Therefore, effective information architecture comes from understanding business
objectives and constraints, the content, and the requirements of the people that will use
the site. Information architecture is often described using the following diagram
(Figure 2).

4.1 Business/context
Understanding an organization’s business objectives, politics, culture, technology,
resources and constraints is essential before considering development of the
information architecture. Techniques for understanding context include:
 Enterprise
knowledge

737

Figure 2.
Information architecture
factors
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

.
Reading existing documentation: mission statements, organization charts,
previous research and vision documents are a quick way of building up an
understanding of the context in which the system must work.
.
Stakeholder interviews: speaking to stakeholders provides valuable insight into
business context and can unearth previously unknown objectives and issues.

4.2 Content
The most effective method for understanding the quantity and quality of content (i.e.
functionality and information) proposed for a system is to conduct a content inventory.
Content inventories identify all of the proposed content for a system, where the content
currently resides, who owns it and any existing relationships between content. Content
inventories are also commonly used to aid the process of migrating content between
the old and new systems.

4.3 Users
Effective information architecture must reflect the way people think about the subject
matter. Techniques for getting users involved in the creation of information
architecture include:
.
Card sorting. Card sorting involves representative users sorting a series of cards,
each labeled with a piece of content or functionality, into groups that make sense
to them. Card sorting generates ideas for how information could be grouped and
labeled.
.
Card-based classification evaluation. Card-based classification evaluation is a
technique for testing information architecture before it has been implemented.
The technique involves writing each level of information architecture on a large
card, and developing a set of information-seeking tasks for people to perform
using the architecture.

There are two main approaches to defining information architecture. These are:
(1) Top-down information architecture. This involves developing a broad
understanding of the business strategies and user needs, before defining the
high level structure of site, and finally the detailed relationships between
content.
 MD (2) Bottom-up information architecture. This involves understanding the detailed
47,5 relationships between content, creating walkthroughs (or storyboards) to show
how the system could support specific user requirements and then considering
the higher level structure that will be required to support these requirements.

Both of these techniques are important in a project. A project that ignores top-down
738 approaches may result in well-organized, findable content that does not meet the needs
of users or the business. A project that ignores bottom-up approaches may result in a
site that allows people to find information but does not allow them the opportunity to
explore related content.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

5. Zachman’s enterprise architecture framework

As mentioned before, Zachman framework presents a two dimensional matrix. The
first dimension embodies the viewpoint of the people who are involved in the
development of information systems. The second one defines the several system
operations to categorize the related traits. In this dimension the items which should be
mentioned or created information management (such as data, information, network,
people, time and motivation) are settled, and in the first dimension the viewpoints
which should be attended for each of these subjects are organized. Figure 3 shows the
Zachman framework (Frankel and Harmon, 2003).

5.1 Zachman framework perspectives (rows)

The rows of this matrix illustrate different layers of abstraction that each of them
expresses a role in an enterprise (Sowa and Zachman, 2005):
.
Scope (contextual). Describes the purpose and the strategy of an organization
which introduces the professional context of the other perspectives.
.
Business model. Presents nature of the business which encompasses the
structures, turnovers, sections and so on.
.
System model. This model describes the previous model more precisely.
.
Technology model. It is an exhibition of the way in which the system is
accomplished.
.
Detailed representations (out of context). This vision presents special details of
the implementation of particular system elements (sections which should become
more distinct and more explicit before starting the production).
.
Functioning enterprise. It is the functional vision of a system in a functional
environment and in this point of view the provided systems are performing as
the sections of the enterprise.

5.2 Zachman framework abstractions (columns)

The columns of this framework describe several dimensions of the production and the
development of a system (different abstractions) (Sowa and Zachman, 2005):
.
Data (what). Describes the system container or the data(if we have information
systems).
.
Function (how). Describes the system’s performance and function which includes
procedures and control flows.
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Enterprise
knowledge

The Zachman framework

Figure 3.
739
 MD .
Network (where). In this prospect the remote elements and their connection is
47,5 displayed.
.
People (who). Describes the correlated people and enterprise sections.
.
Time (when). Expresses the sequence and time of the procedures and the flows
which are distinct in the how prospect.
740 .
Motivation (why). In this point-of-view the motivations to create the system and
cramp rules are displayed.

6. Methodology
This research is descriptive in method, because its purpose is to appoint knowledge
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

architecture via conceptual and comparative modeling by utilizing the knowledge

management procedure and depiction of knowledge capture steps. On the other hand, it
is fundamental in purpose; because it describes knowledge architecture based on
theoretical genuine, contextual and comparative models.
Data compilation implements are scientific documents, articles and books by which
the scientific framework and the model are adjusted. A questionnaire is used as an
implement to collect data to confirm the validity of the model that is completed by the
professors who are known as the knowledge architecture experts.

7. Illustration of the proposed knowledge architecture model

In order to design our knowledge architecture model, two dimensions of human and
operative perspectives are mentioned similar to the Zachman framework. First
dimension embodies the viewpoint of the people who are the actors of knowledge
architecture. The second one defines the several operations that should be created or
mentioned to architect the organizational knowledge. Subsequently, we will describe
the essence of these dimensions, and then we delineate the container of each cell that is
deduced from the cross over of columns and rows; then the DFD of this model is
displayed. Figure 4 shows our knowledge architecture model.

7.1 Model’s perspectives (rows)

In this section we describe the viewpoints of our model:
(1) First row defines the restrictions and the boundaries for the organizational
knowledge. This point of view describes the KM objectives and strategies of an
organization that interprets its knowledge direction and the professional basis
of other perspectives.
(2) Second row shows the way in which senior knowledge managers of an
enterprise manage the knowledge departments, knowledge workers, knowledge
creators, knowledge owners and the outcome of knowledge operations.
(3) Third row describes the logic of knowledge architect’s work. This viewpoint
describes the way in which the required knowledge for an enterprise is gained
or created and improved.
(4) In the fourth row the way of utilizing technology in knowledge architecture is
denoted. In other words, in this point-of-view the restrictions of the solutions
and the technology are delineated such as the type of databases, the language
kinds, the programs’ structures, user interfaces, etc.
 Enterprise
knowledge

741
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Figure 4.
The two-dimensional
matrix that illustrates the
knowledge architecture
model
 MD (5) The fifth row describes the way of software engineering. This vision is less
important in the architecture point of view, because it is concentrated on a part
47,5 of a system instead of the entire system. Therefore we surrender this part in the
description of the knowledge architecture model.
(6) The sixth row describes the operational viewpoint of the model.
(7) The third, fourth and fifth rows outline the motif of enterprise knowledge
742 architecture.

7.2 Model’s abstractions (columns)

The columns of this model describe several dimensions of the model development
(different abstractions):
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

.
Data (what). Describes the data each of the roles contains.
.
Function (how). Describes each role’s performance and function
.
Network (where). In this prospect the remote elements and their connection is
displayed.
.
People (who). Delineates people and enterprise sections that are correlated to the
organizational knowledge.
.
Time (when). Expresses the sequence and time of the procedures and the flows
which are distinct in the how prospect.
.
Motivation (why). In this point-of-view the motivations of the operations and
restriction rules are displayed.
As mentioned in the cells of the two-dimensional matrix illustrating the KA model
(Figure 4), the posture of objects changes from one standpoint to another. For example
the knowledge architect perspective is focused on the knowledge and information
entities, the characteristics of knowledge workers, knowledge writers, knowledge
owners and their relationships; but the IT designer perspective is focused on the tables,
columns and the structure boundaries of the information systems in a linkage data
base. Frequently, there is a process in which the structures of a viewpoint are
transferred to the supported structures of the next point-of-view. In other words, each
transfer makes us closer to the KM functioning model.
7.3 The proposal model’s cell description
Figure 4 shows the two-dimensional matrix that illustrates the knowledge architecture
model in which each cell mentions the subscription of a perspective and an abstraction.
In the following section, the content of each cell is described.
7.3.1 Column 1: data. Knowledge tracer (row 1): value system (culture): in this cell
the value system which is derived from an organizational culture is denoted. Culture is
created on the basis of values, norms, beliefs, theories, reports (which are derived from
the analysis of different events and issues) and the process of decision-making. Culture
plays the role of intellectual software in knowledge creation; in other words, it creates
the way of thinking and understanding and directs the people’s viewpoints, their
behaviors and their type of decision making.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): knowledge management manual: organizations
should adjust a KM manual to achieve the required skills for knowledge management
(Hamidizade, 2007). This manual operates like the constitutional law to coordinate the
 several organizational layers’ functions; therefore it creates a common perception Enterprise
among the knowledge workers. It can include concepts, targets, knowledge transfer knowledge
and enrichment, knowledge creation guidelines, knowledge coding and improvement,
knowledge repositories and knowledge management roles and skills.
This manual has two major aspects:
(1) Hard aspect consist of knowledge collection, knowledge measurement and
knowledge presentation.
743
(2) Soft aspect consist of knowledge creating, knowledge sharing and spreading of
knowledge.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

The importance of these aspects in the manual is equal. The hard aspect presents the
methods and implements that assure the success of knowledge management.
Knowledge architect (row 3): knowledge map: in this cell the designed knowledge
map by the knowledge tracer is given to the knowledge architect. Knowledge resources
should be clear and understandable when they are referred. In other words, knowledge
resources should be classified after they are identified.
Information technology designer (row 4): gained knowledge: in this cell the
qualification of knowledge repositories is mentioned. In other words, this cell shows
the physical restrictions of an enterprise’s data base and information technology.
KM functioning model (row 6): actual business knowledge: the actual data base of
organizational knowledge is created and the initial data is converted and organized.
7.3.2 Column 2: function. Knowledge tracer (row 1): designing knowledge map: in
this cell a pattern to purvey the knowledge map is displayed (Figure 5). Knowledge
map demonstrates the list of demands, information resources, knowledge creation
resources and their real positions. Knowledge map is a guideline to recognize the
position of knowledge, the way of knowledge creation, knowledge alignment and
knowledge utilization; though, it should not be mixed up with a knowledge resource.
Otherwise, knowledge map shows the knowledge offices, knowledge groups,
knowledge people and documents that include knowledge and introduces knowledge
workers, knowledge writers and knowledge owners. Therefore, the essential purpose
of a knowledge map is to display the address of the places to obtain the knowledge and
proficiency needed.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): knowledgeable management: in this
responsibility the roles, tasks and preparing guidelines, the lead and promotion of
organizational learning is followed. Besides, a senior knowledge manager should be
capable of working on the basis of knowledge and intellectual properties transference.
This title exists in levels such as senior information chiefs, chief of human resources’
gatherings and research segments, business segments and functional sections
leadership.
Furthermore, a senior knowledge manager should take the responsibilities in the
base of intellectual properties and knowledge transference such as:
. Propagation and supporting knowledge and knowledge instruction.
.
Design and apply appropriate knowledge infrastructures such as knowledge
bases, knowledge networks, research units and libraries; then monitoring them.
 MD
47,5

744
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Figure 5.
A pattern to purvey the
knowledge map

.
Relevance arrangement with information and knowledge providers and achieve
cooperation agreements with universities and research centers, industry centers
and thoroughbred organizations.
.
Reinforcement of the processes of knowledge creation and its usage by the
enrichment of related information networks to simplify the relevant tasks.
.
Plan to invent coding methods and knowledge usage, emphasizing on knowledge
repositories of future knowledge frameworks.
.
Evaluate the value of knowledge by technical and financial methods.
.
Leading the professional knowledge managers and encourage team working
spirit: to encourage team working spirit the senior knowledge managers should
reconsider the old knowledge equation:
Knowledge ¼ “Power; so stock it”
To:
Knowledge ¼ “Power and wisdom; so share it to gain more”:
.
Establishment of the system of service atonement and promotion.
Knowledge architect (row 3): knowledge capture, conversion and knowledge
repositories enrichment: In this cell the way of capturing and transferring
knowledge and improving knowledge repositories is delineated.
 Organizational knowledge exists in two regions: Enterprise
(1) Information systems and information based business processes(knowledge as knowledge
information).
(2) Staff(knowledge as human resources).

The process of explicit knowledge extraction is shown in Figure 6 and the process of
tacit knowledge extraction is shown in Figure 7. 745
The methods of explicit knowledge extraction are as follows (Metaxiotis et al., 2003):
.
Merge and edition. It is the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit
knowledge by the knowledge owners who share it with one another.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Reconsidering and developing manners is the key method for knowledge

usage allover an organization.
.
Externalization. It is the acquisition and reservation of basic knowledge. The
purpose of this method is accumulation and assimilation of the parallel
knowledge.
.
Internalization. It is the conversion of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge
that enables the employees to use knowledge correctly when they encounter a
problem. Actually, this process sieves the gathered knowledge to extract and
transfer the applied knowledge of special knowledge explorers and is consist of
knowledge exposition and the presentation of its development.
.
Cognition. It is the knowledge application in a way that the automatic systems
such as professional systems or systems based on artificial intelligence are
useful.

Figure 6.
The process of explicit
knowledge extraction
 MD
47,5

746
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Figure 7.
The process of tacit
knowledge extraction

The methods of tacit knowledge extraction are as follows (Metaxiotis et al., 2003):
.
Sociability. It is the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge via
participation in experiences, imitation and practice. This kind of exercises is
applicable through instruction and training, association in conferences and
seminars or an organization’s staff interchanges during the time out.
.
Externalization (capture). It is the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit
knowledge via the declaration of tacit knowledge and then its conversion to a
report of a document.
.
Intermediation. This method is like the internalization, but it needs the
conversion of tacit knowledge by employing moderators such as humans,
systems and automatic performers. The assignment of these moderators is the
preparation of different information and their extra refinement based on the
explanation of data explorers or knowledge resources.
.
Cognition. It is the knowledge application in a way that the automatic systems
such as professional systems or systems based on artificial intelligence are useful.

The knowledge architecture should cooperate with the information technology

designer to enrich the knowledge repositories. The guidelines to enrich knowledge
repositories are (Davenport et al., 1997):
(1) Knowledge abstract arrangement: the goal of knowledge abstracts arrangement
is to gather and convert the existing knowledge to documents, reports, articles,
etc. and settle them in a knowledge resource. Storing and retrieving such items
should be possible mechanically.
 (2) Establishing the information basis of conversations, accumulating the common Enterprise
experiences of an organization’s staff in particular outlines (standard knowledge
resourceful networks). There are three areas for these networks:
.
competitors’ knowledge including analyzers’ reports;
. articles of professional magazines and researches on the market; and
.
knowledge and information detection and making connections with 747
specialist managers.
(3) Classification and arrangement of the existing tacit/explicit knowledge based
on the experiences and perceptions of an organization’s employees.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

(4) Creation of internal document repositories.

(5) Utilization of evaluation and service atonement services to change employees’
behaviors.

Information technology designer (row 4): designing the knowledge maintenance and
transferring system: To transfer Knowledge, two aspects are considered: knowledge
repository establishment and construction of knowledge transference and knowledge
access channels.
The three basic knowledge repositories are:
(1) Knowledge derived from external environment (customers’ knowledge,
competitors’ knowledge, related law centers, economical, political, cultural
and social processes and the supporters of an organization).
(2) Structured knowledge based on the internal environment of an organization
(presents in documents such as research reports, marketing methods and
resources).
(3) Unstructured knowledge based on the internal environment of an organization
(related to the tacit knowledge of the staff).

The best techniques to design efficient connection systems and systems for knowledge
transfer to establish knowledge transference and knowledge access channels are:
. Minimizing the number of knowledge transfer among people to achieve the
minimum distortion.
.
Offering the 24 hours a day availability for an organization’s staff from
everywhere.
.
Personnel authorization and persuasion to participate and share their knowledge
and their systems to be used by others.
. Designing a flexible system that can be updated automatically based on the
achieved questions and answers.
.
Designing multi channels to transfer knowledge via interanets, face-to-face
conversation, etc.

KM functioning model (row 6): enterprise knowledge architecture: the knowledge

architecture model of an organization is converted to applicable programs.
 MD 7.3.3 Column 3: network. Knowledge tracer (row 1): list of the location of knowledge
47,5 creation resources: it illustrates the actual and essential locations of knowledge
production in an enterprise.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): logical network: it delineates the geographical
positions of knowledge resources and their connection techniques.
Knowledge architect (row 3): logical network architecture: in this cell the way in
748 which knowledge resources are connected to each other and their connection
techniques are denoted.
Information technology designer (row 4): technology architecture: it is the physical
appearance of an enterprise’s information technology environment which
demonstrates the actual hardware and existing software systems in the nodes and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

lines of “software systems” such as operation systems and mid-softwares.

KM functioning model (row 6): actual physical network: it is the description of
applied connection facilities.
7.3.4 Column 4: people. Knowledge tracer (row 1): list of knowledge workers,
knowledge writers and organizational knowledge owners: it is the list of an
organization’s sections in which knowledge writers, knowledge workers and
knowledge owners are performing.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): the way of work progress: It is the diagram of
actual responsibilities assignment (attribution) (which is related to the knowledge of
knowledge workers and knowledge owners) and the specifications of their services.
Knowledge architect (row 3): human connection architecture: it is the expression of
logical systems of the connections between knowledge workers, knowledge writers
and knowledge owners. This procedure specifies who needs what kind of knowledge
and information to do his/her job and who is allowed to have access to which level of
knowledge.
Information technology designer (row 4): presentation architecture: it is the physical
presentation of the work cycle in an organization in which the role of knowledge
workers and knowledge owners is mentioned and is composed of special distinct
sections, their research requirements and the presentation format of their work
products. In this cell the actual interface between each person and information
technology is designed and the focus is on graphic interface issues, alternative paths,
security laws (rules) and the style of presentation.
KM functioning model (row 6): actual business organization: an organization’s
staffs are trained to use the new system to improve the knowledge of their career and
their organization.
7.3.5 Column 5: time. Knowledge tracer (row 1): list of business events related to
knowledge: it is a list of knowledge time related events that should be answered by the
organization. In this cell a description of organizational knowledge life cycle is
delineated.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): master schedule: in this section the actual
master schedule is denoted which is a description of organizational knowledge life
cycle and all its respective occurrences.
Knowledge architect (row 3): processing structure: in this cell the events which
make knowledge to covert from one kind to another, are described.
 Information technology designer (row 4): control structure: it is a physical Enterprise
description of systematic events and physical cycles of a process by means of control
structures which pass the control from one module to another.
knowledge
KM functioning model (row 6): actual business schedule: in this cell the knowledge
events are being answered correctly by an organization’s staff by using information
technology.
7.3.6 Column 6: motivation. Knowledge tracer (row 1): list of knowledge 749
management targets/strategies: it is a list of fundamental goals of knowledge
management (strategies/key success factors) which are important for an organization.
Knowledge senior manager (row 2): business plan based on knowledge: this cell
encompasses the policies and schematization based on organizational knowledge
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

which shows the motivation of activities related to the organizational knowledge. Also,
this cell translates the objectives of the row above to the especial rules and limitations
that are exerted (applied) on the knowledge operations.
Knowledge architect (row 3): knowledge management rules: in this cell knowledge
management rules are specified as the information that should exist or the information
that should be converted to. Also these rules take place in data structure (Col. 1),
process description (Col. 2) and administrative policies in different organizational
knowledge levels.
Information technology designer (row 4): rule design: in this part the rules of
knowledge management systems are converted to the elements of software program
design.
KM functioning model (row 6): actual business strategy: the rules of knowledge
management and information technology are imposed to the business

8. The model’s DFD (data flow diagram)

When it comes to conveying how information data flows through systems (information
systems, KM systems) and how that data is transformed in the process, data flow
diagrams (DFDs) are the method of choice over technical descriptions for three
principal reasons (Le Vie, 2000):
(1) DFDs are easier to understand by technical and nontechnical audiences.
(2) DFDs can provide a high-level system overview, complete with boundaries and
connections to other systems.
(3) DFDs can provide a detailed representation of system components.

DFDs represent external devices sending and receiving data, processes that change
that data, and data flows themselves.
Therefore, to clarify the role of each actor (in our knowledge architecture model) and
the way in which they are connected to each other, in this section the manual DFD of
the model is drawn. The DFD is shown in Figure 8. It should be mentioned that in this
diagram we can show the performers, their actions and data flows.
As it has been shown, of all actors except the software subcontractors are a member
of one organization. The essential and central role in this DFD is the knowledge
architect who demands knowledge map (provided by knowledge tracer), knowledge
repositories, documents/databases, transfer and access channels (provided by
information technology designer) and the policies and knowledge related
schematization of an organization (provided by senior knowledge managers), as
 MD
47,5

750
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Figure 8.
The DFD of the
knowledge architecture
model

he/she provides the application to know the place of knowledge resources and
knowledge owners (for knowledge tracer), the extracted knowledge(for information
technology designer), and guidelines for organizational knowledge extraction and
transfer (for knowledge senior managers). Otherwise, the knowledge architect specifies
the way in which tacit and explicit knowledge are extracted (Figures 6 and 7) using the
knowledge map which is designed by the knowledge tracer (Figure 5); besides, the
knowledge architect shows the way of knowledge transference and knowledge
 repositories enrichment with the aid of information technology designer according to Enterprise
the organizational policies presented by the knowledge senior managers (details are knowledge
mentioned in the model illustration).
The information technology designer provides the best techniques to create
repositories and to design efficient connection systems and systems for knowledge
transfer to establish knowledge transference and knowledge access channels (details
are mentioned in the model illustration). Besides, the information technology designer 751
is the only one who has connection with software subcontractors; in other words, the
information technology designer demands software production to create databases,
knowledge repositories, etc. and then the software subcontractors provides customized
software.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Although the details of the performance of each actor are mentioned in the model’s
description, the summary of their accomplishment is mentioned in the DFD (Figure 8).

9. Questionnaire design
To confirm the validity of the proposed model, 50 questionnaires (appendix) were
distributed among knowledge architecture specialists who are selected according to
their reputation and resume in knowledge management and knowledge architecture.
Finally 30 completed questionnaires returned and used for analysis. Table I shows the
characteristics of the statistical population which is composed of the professors who
are the members of the faculty of Management in the University of Tehran, Iran
University of Science and Technology, The Tarbiat Moaalem University in Tehran
(TMU) and have written a remarkable number of articles related to KA and KM and
have done a lot of research on these two subjects. Besides, these professors are working
as knowledge managers and knowledge architectures in other organizations’ R&D
section such as oil and petrochemical industries. To analyze the questionnaire’s
reliability, the Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated by the SPSS 11.5 software
(a ¼ 0:8516) which proved its reliability.

10. Data analysis methods

To analyze the data, standard deviation, mean and binomial test were used (Hollander
and Wolfe, 1973).

10.1 The calculation of standard deviation (STD)

First, to analyze the data, the STD was calculated for each question of the
questionnaire based on the gathered data. It is deduced that for each question the STD
is less than 1 (0.583-0.845) and thus it is acceptable (Table II).

Scientific rank Count

Associate professor 10
Assistant professor 14 Table I.
Instructor professor 6 The characteristics of the
Total 30 statistical population
 MD
Item statistics
47,5 Mean Std deviation Count

Answer to question no. 1 4.27 0.583 30

Answer to question no. 2 4.00 0.643 30
Answer to question no. 3 4.03 0.615 30
752 Answer to question no. 4 3.80 0.583 30
Answer to question no. 5 4.07 0.785 30
Answer to question no. 6 3.53 0.776 30
Answer to question no. 7 3.70 0.750 30
Answer to question no. 8 3.80 0.714 30
Answer to question no. 9 3.60 0.583 30
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Answer to question no. 10 3.87 0.776 30

Answer to question no. 11 3.77 0.898 30
Table II. Answer to question no. 12 4.17 0.791 30
The calculation of Answer to question no. 13 3.90 0.845 30
standard deviation Answer to question no. 14 4.10 0.607 30

10.2 The calculation of mean

To compare the results of completed questionnaires with the questionnaire’s average
and maximum score; firstly, the total score of each completed questionnaire was
calculated; then the mean score of 30 completed questionnaires was calculated (55)
which is more than the questionnaire’s average score (42) and expresses that the model
in the opinion of the KMA specialists is desirable.

10.3 The binomial test

The Likert scale was used in the questionnaire (Likert, 1932). The hypothesis was
descriptive and the data were qualitative; thus, the binomial test is used for the
statistical analysis. These items were tested in the questionnaire (14 questions):
(1) the perfection and comprehensiveness of the model;
(2) the clarity of the description of the knowledge tracer duties;
(3) the clarity of the description of the knowledge senior manager duties;
(4) the clarity of the description of the knowledge architecture’s role;
(5) the clarity of the description of the IT designer’s role;
(6) the rows structural independence (surrendering the input of each row);
(7) the applicability of the proposed knowledge map pattern;
(8) the applicability of the proposed pattern of explicit knowledge extraction;
(9) the applicability of the proposed pattern of tacit knowledge extraction;
(10) the applicability of the design techniques of connection systems, knowledge
transference and knowledge access channels;
(11) the applicability of enriching techniques of knowledge repositories;
(12) attending the knowledge management strategies;
(13) the ease of applicability of the model; and
(14) the flexibility of the model.
 In all of the questions, we mentioned m # 3 as the null hypothesis (H0) and m . 3 as Enterprise
the alternative hypothesis (H1). The test results are calculated by the SPSS 11.5 knowledge
software that indicates that the model is validated. Table III shows the results of
binomial test that presents that all of the questions are confirmed by the KMA
specialists at a desirable percentage (60-90 percent).

753
11. Conclusions
Nowadays, which can be called “the age of information”, knowledge is the most
important factor in the long-term success of both an individual and an organization.
With knowledge taking on increased importance, it makes sense that there is an
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

opportunity to create competitive advantage by effectively managing its storage and

use. Effective knowledge management architecture creates competitive advantage by
bringing appropriate knowledge to the point of action when needed. Employee
turnover is also reduced because a large portion of the knowledge and expertise
acquired by the employee is captured in the knowledge base. It seems the key success
factor is the presentation of a well designed knowledge architecture model. A
successful knowledge management architecture attributes are as follows:
. available (if knowledge exists, it is available for retrieval);
.
accurate in retrieval (if available, knowledge is retrieved);
.
effective (knowledge retrieved is useful and correct); and
.
accessible (knowledge is available when needed).

The main objective of this article is designing a new model to architect organizational
knowledge by using the Zachman framework. To achieve this goal, firstly the concepts
of knowledge management and knowledge and information architecture and the
description of Zachman framework are described; Second, the purposed knowledge
architecture model is presented (Figure 4) and finally the purposed knowledge
architecture model’s DFD is delineated. However, there were some restrictions in our
way to achieve our goal such as the lack of resources directly related to the subject of
our research, the novelty of this kind of research in Iran and the lack of organizations
which perform a knowledge architecture model in real.
Finally, the most important results of this research are:
.
Providing a model to architect organizational knowledge based on the Zachman
framework which the validity is confirmed by polling the opinion of Iranian
knowledge architecture experts and statistical methods.
.
Providing the DFD that shows the way in which data flows among the people
who play an essential role in knowledge architecture.
.
The organizational knowledge architecture basic factors are an organization’s
work processes; organizations staff especially knowledge oriented human
resources, senior knowledge managers and information and communication
technology (ICT).
.
Each enterprise should customize the presented model in proportion to its
features and its situation to architect the organizational knowledge.
 MD
Statistics
47,5 Observed Asymp. Sig.
Category n prop. Test prop. (one-tailed)

Answer to question no. 1 Group 1 , ¼3 2 0.1 0.6 0.000a,b

Group 2 .3 28 0.9
754 Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 2 Group 1 , ¼3 6 0.2 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 24 0.8
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 3 Group 1 , ¼3 5 0.2 0.6 0.000a,b
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Group 2 .3 25 0.8
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 4 Group 1 , ¼3 11 0.4 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 19 0.6
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 5 Group 1 , ¼3 8 0.3 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 22 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 6 Group 1 , ¼3 13 0.4 0.6 0.048a,b
Group 2 .3 17 0.6
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 7 Group 1 , ¼3 10 0.3 0.6 0.003a,b
Group 2 .3 20 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 8 Group 1 , ¼3 9 0.3 0.6 0.01a,b
Group 2 .3 21 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 9 Group 1 , ¼3 12 0.4 0.6 0.021a,b
Group 2 .3 18 0.6
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 10 Group 1 , ¼3 9 0.3 0.6 0.001a,b
Group 2 .3 21 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 11 Group 1 , ¼3 10 0.3 0.6 0.003a,b
Group 2 .3 20 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 12 Group 1 , ¼3 5 0.2 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 25 0.8
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 13 Group 1 , ¼3 8 0.3 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 22 0.7
Total 30 1.0
Answer to question no. 14 Group 1 , ¼3 4 0.1 0.6 0.000a,b
Group 2 .3 26 0.9
Total 30 1.0
Table III. Notes: aAlternative hypothesis states that the proportion of cases in the first group , 0.6; bBased on Z
The binomial test results approximation
 .
Knowledge architecture is the key success factor of a knowledge management Enterprise
program which depends on the employees’ motivation, anxiety and capability to knowledge
share their knowledge and information with the others.

Moreover, based on the major results of this research it seems necessary to expose
these proposes for the future research and investigations:
.
Designing an appropriate implementation process including the different phases 755
of performing and operating the KA model in an organization.
.
Surveying from foreigner experts about this KA model.
.
Designing a process to measure the staff’s tacit knowledge.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

.
Designing a process to evaluate the organizational knowledge.
.
Designing a process to create knowledge.
.
Designing a process for the service atonement of knowledge workers.
.
Designing a process to improve the didactic system of an organization’s
researchers based on the created knowledge.

Although the appliance of knowledge architecture is recognized for a long time, but the
research on its outputs is generally theoretical. This article is an attempt to present a
model that is applicable for the organizations.

References
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M. and Behazin, F. (2006), “Knowledge management national policies for
moving towards knowledge-based development: a comparison between micro and macro
level”, Knowledge Management International Conference and Exhibition Proceedings
(KMICE2006), Malaysia, pp. 467-76.
Barker, I. (2005), “What is information architecture?”, Step Two Designs, KM column, available
at: www.steptwo.com.au
Berawi, M.A. and Woodhead, R.M. (2005), “Application of knowledge management in production
management”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 249-57.
Bergeron, B. (2003), Essentials of Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Bhatt, G.D. (2001), “Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction
between technologies, techniques, and people”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 68-75.
Boland, R. and Tenkasi, R. (1995), “Perspective making, perspective taking”, Organization
Science, Vol. 6, pp. 350-72.
Boschma, R. (2005), “Role of proximity in interaction and performance: conceptual and empirical
challenges”, Regional Studies, No. 39, pp. 41-5.
Brancheau, J.C. and Wetherbe, J.C. (1986), “Information architectures: methods and practice”,
Information Processing and Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 453-63.
Bukowitz, W.R. and Williams, R.L. (1999), The Knowledge Management Fieldbook, Financial
Times, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 1-10.
Chatterjee, J. (2002), “Knowledge management – theories, issues and challenges”, IEEE Annual
Seminar, K-ware, pp. 1-4.
 MD Chay, Y.W., Menkhoff, T., Loh, B. and Evers, H.-D. (2005), “What makes knowledge sharing in
organizations tick? An empirical study”, Governing and Managing Knowledge in Asia,
47,5 World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 91-110.
Chay, Y.W., Menkhoff, T., Loh, B. and Evers, H.-D. (2007), “Social capital and knowledge sharing
in knowledge-based organisations: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Knowledge Management, No. 3, pp. 37-56.
756 Chevron, J.S. (2001), “Developing an integrated enterprise-wide knowledge architecture”, APQC
Conference – Next Generation KM, Houston, TX, 10/11 September, pp. 1-20.
Choi, B., Poon, S.K. and Davis, J.G. (2008), “Effects of knowledge management strategy on
organizational performance: a complementarity theory-based approach”, Omega,
The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 235-51.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Chong, C.-W., Holden, T., Wilhelmij, P. and Schmidt, R.A. (2000), “Where does knowledge
management add value?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 366-80.
Coombs, R. and Hull, R. (1998), “Knowledge management practices and path dependency in
innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 237-53.
Davenport, T., Delong, D. and Beers, M. (1997), “Building successful knowledge management
projects: managing the knowledge of the organization: Center for Business Innovation”,
working paper, Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation, Boston, MA.
de Gooijer, J. (2000), “Designing a knowledge management performance framework”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 303-10.
Drucker, P. (1993), Post Capitalist Society, HarperRow, New York, NY.
Evers, H.-D. (2008), “Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: designing a knowledge
architecture for development”, ZEF Working paper Series 27, pp. 1-21.
Feldman, M. (2000), “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”, Organization
Science, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 611-29.
Frankel, D.S. and Harmon, P. (2003), “The Zachman framework and the OMG’s model driven
architecture”, A BP Trend Whitepaper, pp. 1-14.
Gupta, J.N.D. and Sharma, S.K. (2004), Creating Knowledge Based Organizations, Idea Group
Publishing, Trenton, NJ, pp. 44-52.
Hamidizade, M. (2007), “Knowledge management manual: operational approach to utilize the
organizational and personal knowledge”, 9th Congress of Tripartite Government, Industry
and University Cooperation for National Development, Nadi, Fiji, 26-28 November,
pp. 187-99.
Hedlund, G. (1994), “A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90.
Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D.A. (1973), Nonparametric Statistical Methods, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY, pp. 21-132.
Holm, J., Olla, P., Moura, D. and Warhaut, M. (2006), “Creating architectural approaches to
knowledge management: an example from the space industry”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 36-51.
Horton, F.W. (1989), “Information architectures: the information resources entity (IRE) modeling
approach”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 313-18.
Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., Rezaee Nour, J. and Fesharaki, M.N. (2007a), “Knowledge management in
Iran aerospace industries: a study on critical factors”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 375-89.
 Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Akhavan, P. and Hosnavi, R. (2007b), “Exploring KM features and Enterprise
learning in Iranian SMEs”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management
systems, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 207-18.
knowledge
Kakabadse, N.K., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2001), “From tacit knowledge to knowledge:
leveraging invisible assets”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 137-54.
Kang, I., Park, Y. and Kim, Y. (2003), “Framework for designing a workflow-based knowledge
map”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 281-94. 757
Kanter, J. (1999), “Knowledge management practically speaking”, Information Systems
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
Lai, L.F. (2007), “A knowledge engineering approach to knowledge management”, Information
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Sciences, Vol. 177, pp. 4072-94.

Lasnik, V.E. (2000), “Architects of knowledge: an emerging hybrid profession for educational
communications”, STC’s 50th Annual Conference Proceedings, Dallas TX, 18-21 May,
pp. 132-6.
Le Vie, D. Jr (2000), “An eCommerce primer for technical communicators”, STC Proceedings of
the 47th Annual Conference.
Likert, R. (1932), “The method of constructing an attitude scale”, in Maranell, G.M. (Ed.), Scaling:
A Source Book for Behavioral Scientists, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Maier, R. and Hädrich, T. (2006), “Centralized versus peer-to-peer knowledge management
systems”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 47-61.
Malhotra, Y. (2000), “Knowledge management and new organizational forms”,
in Malhotra, Y. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, Idea Group
Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Marwick, A.D. (2001), “Knowledge management technology”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 814-30.
Metaxiotis, K., Ergazakis, K., Samouilidis, E. and Psarras, J. (2003), “Decision support through
knowledge management: the role of the artificial intelligence”, International Journal of
Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 101-6.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge
Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5, pp. 14-37.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996), “Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change
perspective”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 63-92.
Polyani, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, The University
Press Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Polyani, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Rowley, J. (1999), “What is knowledge management?”, Library Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 416-19.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Snyman, R. and Kruger, C.J. (2004), “The interdependency between strategic management and
strategic knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 5-19.
 MD Sowa, J.F. and Zachman, J.A. (2005), “Extending and formalizing the framework for information
systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 276-92.
47,5
Tang, A., Han, J. and Chen, P. (2004), “A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks”,
Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Busan, Korea,
30 November-3 December, pp. 1-8.
Weick, C.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of
758 Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 361-86.
White, M. (2004), “Information architecture”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 218-19.
Wickramasinghe, N. (2003), “Do we practise what we preach?”, Business Process Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 295-316.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Wickramasinghe, N. and Mills, G. (2001), “Integrating e-commerce and knowledge management

– what does the Kaiser experience really tell us?”, International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 83-98.
Yahya, S. and Goh, W.-K. (2002), “Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge
management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 457-68.

Further reading
Akhavan, P. and Jafari, M. (2006), “Critical issues for knowledge management implementation at
a national level”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 52-66.
Gardner, J.R. (2001), “Information architecture planning with XML”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 231-41.
Hamidizade, M. (2008), “Guidelines to design a knowledge engineering system”, Engineering
Instruction of Iran, No. 36, pp. 8-33.
Hung, Y.-C., Huang, S.-M., Lin, Q.-P. and Tsai, M.L. (2005), “Critical factors in adopting a
knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry”, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 164-83.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958), “The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Mirshafiee, A. (2006), “Knowledge management and intellectual property in an organization”,
Persian Oil, No. 40, pp. 34-40.
Sankar, C., Apte, U. and Palvia, P. (1993), “Global information architectures: alternatives and
tradeoffs”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 84-93.
Zachman, J.A. (1987), “A framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 276-92.
 Appendix Enterprise
knowledge

759
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

Figure A1.
Research questionnaire

Corresponding author
Mostafa Jafari can be contacted at: mos@iust.ac.ir

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Peyman Akhavan, Behin Elahi, Mostafa Jafari. 2014. A new integrated knowledge model in supplier
selection. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 7:4, 333-368. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
2. Morteza Alaeddini, Sepideh Salekfard. 2013. Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project
in the business-IT alignment in Iran. Information Systems Frontiers 15, 67-88. [CrossRef]
3. Nastaran Hajiheydari. 2012. Business Model Framework for Knowledge IntensiveOrganizations.
International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering . [CrossRef]
4. Seongbae Lim, Alejandro Zegarra Saldaña, Pablo E. Zegarra Saldaña. 2011. Do market oriented firms
adopt Web 2.0 technologies? An empirical study in hospitality firms. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 7, 465-477. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 12:22 24 February 2016 (PT)

5. Mostafa Jafari, Jalal Rezaeenour, Mohammad Mahdavi Mazdeh, Atefe Hooshmandi. 2011. Development
and evaluation of a knowledge risk management model for project‐based organizations. Management
Decision 49:3, 309-329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Morteza Namvar, Mohammad Fathian, Peyman Akhavan, Mohammad Reza Gholamian. 2010. Exploring
the impacts of intellectual property on intellectual capital and company performance. Management Decision
48:5, 676-697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Mostafa Jafari, Jalal Rezaeenour, Peyman Akhavan, Mehdi N. Fesharaki. 2010. Strategic knowledge
management in aerospace industries: a case study. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 82:1,
60-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]