@article{ che06,
  author = {Mu-Yen Chen and An-Pin Chen},
  journal = {Journal of Information Science},
  title = {Knowledge Management Performance Evaluation: A Decade Review from 1995 to 2004},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {32},
  number = {1},
  pages = {17-38},
  doi = {10.1177/0165551506059220},
  uri = {http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/17},
  abstract = {In this paper, the development of knowledge management (KM) was surveyed, using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004. With a keyword  index and article abstract, we explored how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on a scope of 108 articles from 80 academic KM journals (retrieved from six online databases), we surveyed and classified methods of KM measurement, using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis,  quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-orientated analysis and organization-orientated analysis, together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Future development directions for KM performance evaluation are presented in our discussion. They include: (1) KM performance measurements have tended towards expertise orientation, while evaluation development is a problem-orientated domain; (2) different  information technology methodologies, such as expert systems, knowledge-based systems and case-based reasoning may be able to evaluate KM as simply another  methodology; (3) the ability to continually change and obtain new understanding is the driving power behind KM methodologies, and should be the basis of KM performance evaluations in the future.}
}

{"_id":{"_str":"53ff72c17c90ec6e13000eea"},"__v":0,"authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Chen, M.","Chen, A."],"bibbaseid":"chen-chen-knowledgemanagementperformanceevaluationadecadereviewfrom1995to2004-2006","bibdata":{"downloads":0,"role":"author","bibbaseid":"chen-chen-knowledgemanagementperformanceevaluationadecadereviewfrom1995to2004-2006","year":"2006","volume":"32","uri":"http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/17","type":"article","title":"Knowledge Management Performance Evaluation: A Decade Review from 1995 to 2004","pages":"17-38","number":"1","key":"che06","journal":"Journal of Information Science","id":"che06","doi":"10.1177/0165551506059220","bibtype":"article","bibtex":"@article{ che06,\n author = {Mu-Yen Chen and An-Pin Chen},\n journal = {Journal of Information Science},\n title = {Knowledge Management Performance Evaluation: A Decade Review from 1995 to 2004},\n year = {2006},\n volume = {32},\n number = {1},\n pages = {17-38},\n doi = {10.1177/0165551506059220},\n uri = {http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/17},\n abstract = {In this paper, the development of knowledge management (KM) was surveyed, using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004. With a keyword index and article abstract, we explored how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on a scope of 108 articles from 80 academic KM journals (retrieved from six online databases), we surveyed and classified methods of KM measurement, using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-orientated analysis and organization-orientated analysis, together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Future development directions for KM performance evaluation are presented in our discussion. They include: (1) KM performance measurements have tended towards expertise orientation, while evaluation development is a problem-orientated domain; (2) different information technology methodologies, such as expert systems, knowledge-based systems and case-based reasoning may be able to evaluate KM as simply another methodology; (3) the ability to continually change and obtain new understanding is the driving power behind KM methodologies, and should be the basis of KM performance evaluations in the future.}\n}","author_short":["Chen, M.","Chen, A."],"author":["Chen, Mu-Yen","Chen, An-Pin"],"abstract":"In this paper, the development of knowledge management (KM) was surveyed, using a literature review and classification of articles from 1995 to 2004. With a keyword index and article abstract, we explored how KM performance evaluation has developed during this period. Based on a scope of 108 articles from 80 academic KM journals (retrieved from six online databases), we surveyed and classified methods of KM measurement, using the following eight categories: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, financial indicator analysis, non-financial indicator analysis, internal performance analysis, external performance analysis, project-orientated analysis and organization-orientated analysis, together with their measurement matrices for different research and problem domains. Future development directions for KM performance evaluation are presented in our discussion. They include: (1) KM performance measurements have tended towards expertise orientation, while evaluation development is a problem-orientated domain; (2) different information technology methodologies, such as expert systems, knowledge-based systems and case-based reasoning may be able to evaluate KM as simply another methodology; (3) the ability to continually change and obtain new understanding is the driving power behind KM methodologies, and should be the basis of KM performance evaluations in the future."},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://dret.net/biblio/dret.bib","creationDate":"2014-08-28T18:19:45.268Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["knowledge","management","performance","evaluation","decade","review","1995","2004","chen","chen"],"title":"Knowledge Management Performance Evaluation: A Decade Review from 1995 to 2004","year":2006,"dataSources":["mL7NKvaepNEWFcMvG"]}