Research Interest

My research interest is Learning & Knowledge Management. Specifically, I am interested in practical development of Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) in organisations and its integration with other organizational systems and technologies such as Competitive Intelligent Systems (CIS), Project Management, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), and Supply Chain Management (SCM) & e-Business.

Publications

Journals                             Conferences

Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2009), ‘Uncovering a KMSD Approach from Practice’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (eJKM) [Accepted – to be published 2009]   Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2007), ‘Towards a Knowledge Management Systems Development Method: Critique of some relevant theories and methodologies’, Journal of Information and Management (JIKM), Vol. 6, No. 1 (2007) 1–11 – ISSN: 0219-6492.   Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2007), ‘Notions of Knowledge Management Systems: A Gap Analysis’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (eJKM) 5(1):55-62   Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2008), ‘An Emergent Approach to Knowledge Management Systems Development’, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM2008).   Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2007), ‘Extending Emergent Procedures, Techniques, and Concepts for Knowledge Management Systems Analysis’, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM2007).    Moteleb, A., Simons T. & Teston, E. (2007), ‘Business Analysis for Knowledge Management Systems Development in an HR Service Provider – XPR’, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM2007).    Critten, P. & Moteleb, A. (2007), ‘Towards a Second Generation of Work Based Learning – Supporting Social Knowledge’, Proceedings of the Work Based Learning Futures Conference   Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2006), ‘Identifying the Knowledge Gap in Knowledge Management Systems Development’, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM2006).    Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2006), ‘Relevant theories and methodologies for Knowledge Management Systems Development’, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM2006).   Moteleb, A., Woodman, M., Galal, G. & Bakry, W., (2005), ‘Ontology of Knowledge Management Systems Elements’, Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS2005).   Moteleb A. & Bakry, W., (2004), ‘Polymorphic Nature of Knowledge: Towards a knowledge creation model’. Proceedings of the conference of Information Science, Technology and Management (CISTM2004).   Moteleb A. & Bakry, W., (2004), ‘Diagnostic Criteria for Learning Patterns in VLEs and MLEs’, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on e-Learning Applications, ISSN 1687-143X

ABSTRACT

Knowledge management often refers to various theories and definitions. However, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly knowledge management is and what constitutes a knowledge management system. We are engaged in research into the development of knowledge management systems from principles of practical knowledge management uncovered by a thorough analysis of the literature. As a precursor to field work with ‘knowledge practitioners’ we have conducted our analyses on the ‘practices’ embodied in seminal work of scholars, even as they have changed for individual researcher over time. Thus this paper explains our approach in attempting to identify elements of knowledge management systems according to scholars’ texts in the literature.

You can read the full article in EMCIS 2005

In this paper we concluded that "Knowledge is a polymorphic concept" (Moteleb & Bakry 2004). Knowledge, information, and data are different facets to the same thing. One thing could mean data in a certain context and the same thing could mean information or knowledge in different contexts.

We also emphasised the importance of knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation. "KMS in organisations need to maintain a balance between knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation" because organisations which are engaging in knowledge exploration alone typically suffer from the fact it never gains the returns on its knowledge, and organisations which are engaging in knowledge exploration alone ordinarily suffer from obsolescence (Moteleb & Bakry 2004).  Knowledge exploration includes activities such as research and development, risk taking, experimentation, discovery, innovation (De Pablos 2002), and can be created inductively or deductively, while knowledge exploitation includes activities such as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution (De Pablos 2002), and can be created through conversions between tacit and explicit knowledge.

We then proposed a generic model for knowledge creation - as depicted in the figure below - to allow organisations to engage in both knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation concurrently, which - in our view complements the SECI model of Nonaka. Yet this model needs to be empirically evaluated in organisations.

You can access the full paper on CISTM 2004

References:

Moteleb A. & Bakry, W., (2004), ‘Polymorphic Nature of Knowledge: Towards a knowledge creation model’. Proceedings of the conference of Information Science, Technology and Management (CISTM2004)Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, USA: Oxford University Press

Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, USA: Oxford University Press