How knowledge management systems trap dynamic organisations into outdated practices: a systematic review

IF 3.3 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Daniel Kogi Njiru , David Muchangi Mugo , Faith Mueni Musyoka , Wilberforce Murikah
{"title":"How knowledge management systems trap dynamic organisations into outdated practices: a systematic review","authors":"Daniel Kogi Njiru ,&nbsp;David Muchangi Mugo ,&nbsp;Faith Mueni Musyoka ,&nbsp;Wilberforce Murikah","doi":"10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) are widely used to capture institutional knowledge and support organizational decision-making. Paradoxically, the very systems designed to foster learning, and adaptation can entrench outdated practices, creating <em>competency traps</em>. For example, healthcare organization may continue relying on pre-pandemic protocols because its KMS prioritizes them, or technology firm may repeatedly surface obsolete coding practices from its knowledge base. Understanding how such traps arise and how they can be prevented represents a key gap in the literature. To address this, the present review analysed 65 peer-reviewed studies published between 2019 and 2025 to investigate the paradoxical effects of KMS. The findings integrate mechanisms, contextual factors, and interventions into a unified framework and identify seven recurring mechanisms that reinforce competency traps: codification bias, algorithmic reinforcement, rigid governance, performance-driven adherence, narrow classification, cultural legitimation, and failure to remove outdated knowledge. Environmental dynamism (the speed and unpredictability of change) tends to worsen these problems, while diverse knowledge sources and deliberate unlearning can mitigate them. From this evidence, the study proposes four intervention strategies: introducing time-based review features, increasing diversity in search and recommendation algorithms, adopting flexible governance structures, and implementing regular “challenge” processes to test prevailing knowledge. The framework connects causes, contexts, and solutions, offering clear guidance for designing KMS that remain relevant in dynamic environments. While such systems can enhance learning in stable settings, they must be deliberately managed to stay adaptive. Organizations are therefore advised to complement KMS with mechanisms that encourage questioning, experimentation, and renewal to avoid stagnation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21690,"journal":{"name":"Scientific African","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article e02946"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific African","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227625004168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) are widely used to capture institutional knowledge and support organizational decision-making. Paradoxically, the very systems designed to foster learning, and adaptation can entrench outdated practices, creating competency traps. For example, healthcare organization may continue relying on pre-pandemic protocols because its KMS prioritizes them, or technology firm may repeatedly surface obsolete coding practices from its knowledge base. Understanding how such traps arise and how they can be prevented represents a key gap in the literature. To address this, the present review analysed 65 peer-reviewed studies published between 2019 and 2025 to investigate the paradoxical effects of KMS. The findings integrate mechanisms, contextual factors, and interventions into a unified framework and identify seven recurring mechanisms that reinforce competency traps: codification bias, algorithmic reinforcement, rigid governance, performance-driven adherence, narrow classification, cultural legitimation, and failure to remove outdated knowledge. Environmental dynamism (the speed and unpredictability of change) tends to worsen these problems, while diverse knowledge sources and deliberate unlearning can mitigate them. From this evidence, the study proposes four intervention strategies: introducing time-based review features, increasing diversity in search and recommendation algorithms, adopting flexible governance structures, and implementing regular “challenge” processes to test prevailing knowledge. The framework connects causes, contexts, and solutions, offering clear guidance for designing KMS that remain relevant in dynamic environments. While such systems can enhance learning in stable settings, they must be deliberately managed to stay adaptive. Organizations are therefore advised to complement KMS with mechanisms that encourage questioning, experimentation, and renewal to avoid stagnation.
知识管理系统如何使动态组织陷入过时的实践:系统回顾
知识管理系统(KMS)被广泛用于获取机构知识和支持组织决策。矛盾的是,旨在促进学习和适应的系统可能会巩固过时的做法,造成能力陷阱。例如,医疗保健组织可能会继续依赖大流行前的协议,因为其KMS会优先考虑这些协议,或者技术公司可能会反复从其知识库中发现过时的编码实践。了解这些陷阱是如何产生的以及如何防止它们是文献中的一个关键空白。为了解决这个问题,本综述分析了2019年至2025年间发表的65项同行评议研究,以调查KMS的矛盾效应。研究结果将机制、背景因素和干预措施整合到一个统一的框架中,并确定了七个反复出现的强化能力陷阱的机制:编纂偏见、算法强化、僵化的治理、绩效驱动的坚持、狭隘的分类、文化合法化和未能消除过时知识。环境动态性(变化的速度和不可预测性)往往会使这些问题恶化,而多样化的知识来源和有意的遗忘可以缓解这些问题。根据这一证据,该研究提出了四种干预策略:引入基于时间的审查特征,增加搜索和推荐算法的多样性,采用灵活的治理结构,以及实施定期的“挑战”流程来测试流行知识。该框架将原因、上下文和解决方案联系起来,为设计在动态环境中保持相关性的KMS提供了清晰的指导。虽然这样的系统可以在稳定的环境中加强学习,但它们必须经过精心管理才能保持适应性。因此,建议组织用鼓励质疑、实验和更新的机制来补充KMS,以避免停滞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scientific African
Scientific African Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
332
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信