1 of 12

Bridging the KM Research-Practice Gap:

A Framework for Managing Knowledge Assets

Aligning Theory and Practice for Measurable Impact

Dr. Dobrica Savić

KM Triversary Forum 2025

Bridging the research-practice gap

in knowledge management (KM)

2 of 12

Agenda

The problem: A persistent gap exists between KM research and organizational practice.

What is it about?

The consequence: This gap constrain innovation, wastes resources, and limits the measurable impact of KM initiatives.

So what?

The solution: Introduce a dynamic four-dimensional framework that treats knowledge as an interconnected system to drive performance.

What can we do?

3 of 12

The KM Research-Practice Gap

RESEARCHERS		PRACTITIONERS
Environment Academia, books, articles, surveys, questionnaires		Environment Profit oriented organizations, teams, systems, meetings
Focus Conceptual models e.g. tacit vs. explicit knowledge		Focus Real-world needs for actionable tools e.g. outdated, hard to find, or lost knowledge, productivity, creativity, innovation
Goals Publishing, conferences, grants		Goals Measurable ROI, increased productivity, scalability
Outcomes Definitions, taxonomies, epistemology, ideal models, publications		Outcomes Operational systems, solutions, dashboards, savings, new products, patents

Theory ≠ Practice

4 of 12

Knowledge is a "thing" to be captured and stored.
Focus is on repositories, databases, and documents ("stocks").
Management is about "curating the library."
The Result: Siloed, outdated, and underutilized knowledge assets.

We often manage knowledge as if it was inert

The Core Problem: Knowledge as a Static Asset

Traditional View

5 of 12

Knowledge is a dynamic and co-created

It is not static. It flows, evolves, requires dialogue and practice of sharing.

Knowledge is not a set of isolated types

They interact like gears in a machine. When aligned, they drive performance.

Knowledge assets are interconnected

As nodes in a network they require interconnected management approach.

Knowledge management shift

From "Stock-and-File" Management (managing documents) to "Flow-and-Relationship" Management (managing conversations and context).

Knowledge isn't a library to be curated;

it's a living system to be cultivated.

New Approach: Knowledge as a Dynamic System

6 of 12

A Four-Dimensional Dynamic Knowledge Framework

Human (tacit)

Capturing what people know

Examples: Personal, context-specific know-how. Expertise, experience, intuition.

Challenges: Human knowledge is fragile. It requires capture, retention, and transfer.

Tools: Mentorship, storytelling, shadowing, lessons learned.

Collective (cultural)

Knowledge through collaboration

Examples: Shared values and norms, communities of practice, peer networks.

Challenges: Silos, trust, engagement, incentives, psychological safety.

Tools: Gamification, social platforms.

Embedded (procedural)

Knowledge built into workflows

Examples: SOPs, automation, decision trees.

Challenges: Rigidity, resistance to change, need for adaptability.

Tools: Process mining, dynamic workflow tools, feedback, discussion forums.

Explicit (codified)

Structured knowledge for reuse

Examples: Visible layer of knowledge like documents, databases, manuals.

Challenges: Accessibility, currency, updating, searchability.

Tools: AI-driven search, semantic tagging.

KNOWLEDGE

Four knowledge dimensions

7 of 12

Aligning the Four Knowledge Dimensions for Impact

Synergy, not silos!

Human (tacit)

Explicit (codified)

Collective (cultural)

Embedded (procedural)

People contribute expertise

Changes are documented

New knowledge integrated

into workflows

Culture of sharing nurtured

8 of 12

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Performance

DIAGNOSE: Map the knowledge ecosystem

Action: Audit the strengths and flow within all four dimensions.

ALIGN: Identify and fix the stumbling blocks

Action: Pinpoint misalignments (e.g., "Great docs, but no culture of use").

EMBED: Foster a common language

Action: Use the Framework as a shared diagnostic in team meetings.

CO-CREATE: Design through networking

Action: Co-design KM initiatives with teams, not for them. Build on real needs and strengthen the right connections.

FROM INSIGHTS TO ACTION USING DYNAMIC KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK

PRACTITIONERS

9 of 12

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Performance

GROUND YOUR THEORIES

Test and refine models in real-world organizational contexts.

COOPERATE WITH PRACTITIONERS

Partner with practitioners on action research and pilot studies.

MEASURE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT

Develop metrics that capture impact across all four knowledge dimensions.

MODERNIZE TRAINING AND EDUCATION

Integrate the Framework into KM curricula, from micro-learning to graduate programs.

FROM INSIGHTS TO ACTION USING DYNAMIC KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK

RESEARCHERS

10 of 12

Conclusions

Knowledge is a dynamic system of four interconnected dimensions: human, explicit, embedded, and collective.

The Four-Dimensional Dynamic Knowledge Framework isn’t just theory. It’s a compass, not a checklist.
Real-world success requires alignment across all four dimensions.
The Framework enables collaboration and measurement.
Researchers should engage with practitioners to build relevant, actionable models.

Practitioners should use the Framework to diagnose gaps, align teams, and co-create solutions.

Working together, researchers and practitioners can close the gap and turn KM theory into measurable, strategic impact.

11 of 12

References

AI statement: AI was used to help find references.

Bansal, P., et al. (2012). “Bridging the Research–Practice Gap”. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 1. (https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0140).
Carlile, P. R. (2004). "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries." Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.
De Borba, D. , Marcirio S.C. (2021). “An Integrative Analysis of Knowledge Management Implementation: A Proposed Research Agenda.” Revista Alcance, vol. 28, no. 2, 2021, May-, pp. 258-277, Brasil (DOI: https://doi.org/10.14210/alca).
Heisig, P., Orth, R. (2007). “Knowledge Management Frameworks: An International Comperative Study.” Eureki, Berlin. (https://tinyurl.com/325ntedn)
McBeath, et al. (2019).”Building knowledge to support human service organizational and management practice: An agenda to address the research-to-practice gap.” Social Work Research, Volume 43, Issue 2, June 2019, Pages 115–128, (https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svz003).
Metzas, G. (2003). “Knowledge Asset Management: beyond the process-centred and product-centred approaches.” Springer.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). "What is Organizational Knowledge?" Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993.