CENTRALIZED VERSUS PEER-TO-PEER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Ronald Maiera Thomas H��drichb a,bDepartment of Management Information Systems and OR, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany a maier@wiwi.uni-halle.de b haedrich@wiwi.uni-halle.de Session J-2 Abstract The term knowledge management system (KMS) has been used widely to denote information and communication technologies in support of knowledge management. However, so far investigations about the notion of KMS, their functions and architecture as well as the differences to more traditional information systems remain on an abstract level. This paper reviews the literature on KMS and distills a number of characteristics concerning the specifics of knowledge to be managed, the platform metaphor, advanced knowledge services, KM instruments, supported processes and goals of their application. The paper then presents two ideal architectures for KMS, a centralized and a peer-to- peer architecture, discusses their differences with the help of two example systems and suggests that each of these architectures fits a different type of KM initiative. Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge management system, architecture, characteristics, peer-to-peer.

1 Centralized Versus Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management Systems Ronald Maier Thomas H��drich Department of Management Information Systems and OR Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany {maier, haedrich}@wiwi.uni-halle.de Abstract The term knowledge management system (KMS) has been used widely to denote information and communication technologies in support of knowledge management. However, so far inves- tigations about the notion of KMS, their functions and architecture as well as the differences to more traditional information systems remain on an abstract level. This paper reviews the litera- ture on KMS and distills a number of characteristics concerning the specifics of knowledge to be managed, the platform metaphor, advanced knowledge services, KM instruments, supported processes and goals of their application. The paper then presents two ideal architectures for KMS, a centralized and a peer-to-peer architecture, discusses their differences with the help of two example systems and suggests that each of these architectures fits a different type of KM initiative. Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge management system, architecture, characteristics, peer-to-peer Suggested track: (J) Knowledge and Information technology 1 Motivation Knowledge management (KM) has been discussed intensively from a human-oriented and from a technology-oriented perspective. Knowledge management systems are seen as enabling technologies for an effective and efficient KM. However, up to date the term knowledge management system (KMS) is often vaguely defined and used ambiguously. Examples are its use for specific KM tools, for KM platforms or for a combination of tools that are applied with KM in mind. It remains unclear what sepa- rates KMS from more traditional information systems that are also discussed as sup- porting KM initiatives. Examples are Intranet infrastructures, document and content management systems, artificial intelligence technologies, business intelligence tools, visualization tools, Groupware or e-learning systems. So far, investigations about the notion of KMS remain on the abstract level of what a KMS is used for, e.g., ���a class of

2 information systems applied to managing organizational knowledge��� (Alavi and Leidner 2001:114), and do not answer what functions a KMS has to offer, what differences there are compared to more traditional information systems and what a KMS architec- ture could look like. Goals of this paper are to define the term KMS and to obtain a set of characteristics that differentiate KMS from traditional information systems (section 2), to contrast two ideal architectures for KMS and to discuss the state-of-the-art with the help of example systems offered on the market (section 3) as well as to discuss the differences be- tween the architectures and which KMS architecture fits what type of KM initiatives (section 4). 2 Towards a Definition of Knowledge Management Systems Even though there is considerable disagreement in the literature and business practice about what exactly KM is, there are a number of researchers and practitioners who stress the importance and usefulness of KMS as enabler or vehicle for the implementa- tion of these approaches. KMS should help to overcome the shortcomings of current practices of business engineering with respect to organizational effectiveness. A review of the literature on information and communication technologies (ICT) to support KM reveals a number of different terms in use, such as knowledge warehouse, KM soft- ware, suite, (support) system, technology or organizational memory (information) sys- tem (e.g., Stein and Zwass 1995:98 McDermott 1999:104 Nede�� and Jacob 2000 Seifried and Eppler 2000 Alavi and Leidner 2001 Mentzas et al. 2001:95f Maier 2004:79ff). In addition to these terms meaning a comprehensive platform in support of KM, many authors provide more or less extensive lists of individual tools or technolo- gies that can be used to support KM initiatives as a whole or certain processes, life cycle phases or tasks thereof (e.g., Allee 1997:224f Borghoff and Pareschi 1998:5f Ruggles 1998:82ff Meso and Smith 2000:227ff Binney 2001:37ff Hoffmann 2001:78f Jackson 2003:5f). Apart from these terms with a clear focus on KM or organizational memory, there is another group of software systems that supports these approaches called e-learning suite, learning management platform, portal, suite or system (Maier 2004:81). These platforms not only support presentation, administration and organization of teaching material, but also interaction between and among teachers and students (Astleitner and Schinagl 2000:114). KMS with roots in document management, collaboration or Groupware and learning management systems with roots in computer-based training