Validation of Davenport's Classification Structure of Knowledge‐intensive Processes

Anoush Margaryan, Colin Milligan, Allison Littlejohn

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to test the validity of a knowledge work typology proposed by Davenport. Although this typology has been referenced extensively in the literature, it does not appear to have been empirically validated.
Design/methodology/approach: The typology was tested through a questionnaire survey among knowledge workers (n ¼ 459) in a multinational company. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the knowledge work groupings arising from the survey.
Findings: The vast majority of the respondents could not be grouped into any one of Davenport’s four knowledge work types. Furthermore, PCA revealed four groupings: low-agency collaboration; lowagency routine work; rule-based work; and high-agency expert work. The results confirm only one of Davenport’s typology models, the Expert model. Davenport’s Collaboration model was found to have elements of the Transaction model. The Transaction and the Integration typology models were not confirmed. Instead, two further models incorporating elements of both Transaction and Integration models emerged. Finally, in contrast to Davenport’s typology, the clusters that emerged from this study do not fit a matrix structure.
Research limitations
: A follow-up qualitative study would be required to better understand the four models that emerged from the data and to elucidate organisational factors that underpin the models.
Originality/value: This is the first empirical study testing the validity of Davenport’s typology.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Knowledge Management
Volume15
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)568-581
Number of pages14
ISSN1367-3270
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Knowledge work
  • Knowledge workers
  • Knowledge work typology
  • Knowledge management
  • Employees

Cite this

@article{a6a42b15f5bc4614a0b0d7fc887e5680,
title = "Validation of Davenport's Classification Structure of Knowledge‐intensive Processes",
abstract = "Purpose: This study aims to test the validity of a knowledge work typology proposed by Davenport. Although this typology has been referenced extensively in the literature, it does not appear to have been empirically validated.Design/methodology/approach: The typology was tested through a questionnaire survey among knowledge workers (n ¼ 459) in a multinational company. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the knowledge work groupings arising from the survey. Findings: The vast majority of the respondents could not be grouped into any one of Davenport’s four knowledge work types. Furthermore, PCA revealed four groupings: low-agency collaboration; lowagency routine work; rule-based work; and high-agency expert work. The results confirm only one of Davenport’s typology models, the Expert model. Davenport’s Collaboration model was found to have elements of the Transaction model. The Transaction and the Integration typology models were not confirmed. Instead, two further models incorporating elements of both Transaction and Integration models emerged. Finally, in contrast to Davenport’s typology, the clusters that emerged from this study do not fit a matrix structure. Research limitations: A follow-up qualitative study would be required to better understand the four models that emerged from the data and to elucidate organisational factors that underpin the models. Originality/value: This is the first empirical study testing the validity of Davenport’s typology.",
keywords = "Knowledge work, Knowledge workers, Knowledge work typology, Knowledge management, Employees, Knowledge work, Knowledge workers, Knowledge work typology, Knowledge management, Employees",
author = "Anoush Margaryan and Colin Milligan and Allison Littlejohn",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1108/13673271111151965",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "568--581",
journal = "Journal of Knowledge Management",
issn = "1367-3270",
publisher = "JAI Press",
number = "4",

}

Validation of Davenport's Classification Structure of Knowledge‐intensive Processes. / Margaryan, Anoush; Milligan, Colin; Littlejohn, Allison.

In: Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2011, p. 568-581.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of Davenport's Classification Structure of Knowledge‐intensive Processes

AU - Margaryan, Anoush

AU - Milligan, Colin

AU - Littlejohn, Allison

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: This study aims to test the validity of a knowledge work typology proposed by Davenport. Although this typology has been referenced extensively in the literature, it does not appear to have been empirically validated.Design/methodology/approach: The typology was tested through a questionnaire survey among knowledge workers (n ¼ 459) in a multinational company. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the knowledge work groupings arising from the survey. Findings: The vast majority of the respondents could not be grouped into any one of Davenport’s four knowledge work types. Furthermore, PCA revealed four groupings: low-agency collaboration; lowagency routine work; rule-based work; and high-agency expert work. The results confirm only one of Davenport’s typology models, the Expert model. Davenport’s Collaboration model was found to have elements of the Transaction model. The Transaction and the Integration typology models were not confirmed. Instead, two further models incorporating elements of both Transaction and Integration models emerged. Finally, in contrast to Davenport’s typology, the clusters that emerged from this study do not fit a matrix structure. Research limitations: A follow-up qualitative study would be required to better understand the four models that emerged from the data and to elucidate organisational factors that underpin the models. Originality/value: This is the first empirical study testing the validity of Davenport’s typology.

AB - Purpose: This study aims to test the validity of a knowledge work typology proposed by Davenport. Although this typology has been referenced extensively in the literature, it does not appear to have been empirically validated.Design/methodology/approach: The typology was tested through a questionnaire survey among knowledge workers (n ¼ 459) in a multinational company. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the knowledge work groupings arising from the survey. Findings: The vast majority of the respondents could not be grouped into any one of Davenport’s four knowledge work types. Furthermore, PCA revealed four groupings: low-agency collaboration; lowagency routine work; rule-based work; and high-agency expert work. The results confirm only one of Davenport’s typology models, the Expert model. Davenport’s Collaboration model was found to have elements of the Transaction model. The Transaction and the Integration typology models were not confirmed. Instead, two further models incorporating elements of both Transaction and Integration models emerged. Finally, in contrast to Davenport’s typology, the clusters that emerged from this study do not fit a matrix structure. Research limitations: A follow-up qualitative study would be required to better understand the four models that emerged from the data and to elucidate organisational factors that underpin the models. Originality/value: This is the first empirical study testing the validity of Davenport’s typology.

KW - Knowledge work

KW - Knowledge workers

KW - Knowledge work typology

KW - Knowledge management

KW - Employees

KW - Knowledge work

KW - Knowledge workers

KW - Knowledge work typology

KW - Knowledge management

KW - Employees

UR - https://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=954921430704&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

U2 - 10.1108/13673271111151965

DO - 10.1108/13673271111151965

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 568

EP - 581

JO - Journal of Knowledge Management

JF - Journal of Knowledge Management

SN - 1367-3270

IS - 4

ER -