UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Science, Engineering and Technology
⋄
INS3705: Assignment 2
Information and Knowledge Management
Semester 1, 2026
⋄
Module Code: INS3705
Module Name: Information and Knowledge Manage-
ment
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: April 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for INS3705
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
Question 1: Knowledge Management at ImbizoTech Solutions
1.1 Critical Evaluation of Current KM Practices (10 marks)
ImbizoTech Solutions (Pty) Ltd derives its competitive advantage almost entirely
from the intellectual capabilities of its consultants. The organisation has invested
in digital collaboration platforms, project knowledge repositories, and structured
training and mentoring programmes, all of which align with the foundational view of
knowledge management as the systematic creation, storage, sharing, and application
of both tacit and explicit knowledge across an organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). Evaluating these investments honestly, however, reveals a pattern that is com-
mon in knowledge-intensive firms: the technology and structures are in place, but the
practices and culture lag behind.
Strengths
The digital repositories at ImbizoTech capture explicit knowledge in forms that per-
sist beyond individual consultants. Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue that the codifica-
tion of knowledge into shared systems is a core requirement for knowledge-intensive
organisations because it raises the accessibility and reusability of expertise across
the firm. Project-based team environments support the socialisation of tacit knowl-
edge, which Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identify as the process through which per-
sonal, experience-based expertise is transferred through shared practice and observa-
tion. Mentoring and training initiatives extend this transfer across levels of seniority,
creating channels through which the practice-based wisdom of senior consultants
flows to junior colleagues over time (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Weaknesses and Knowledge-Related Risks
Despite these strengths, ImbizoTech faces three serious weaknesses. First, knowl-
edge silos restrict the flow of information across teams and departments. When
each team accumulates expertise that never crosses organisational boundaries, the
Page 1 of 30
,UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
firm loses the combinatorial creativity that comes from connecting different knowl-
edge streams (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The practical consequence is duplica-
tion of effort, inconsistent service quality, and constrained innovation.
Second, knowledge hoarding by senior consultants represents a cultural failure. De
Long and Fahey (2000) identify organisational culture as the root cause of hoarding
behaviour: when individuals perceive their personal knowledge as a source of job
security or status, and when the incentive structure does not reward sharing, hoard-
ing becomes the rational response. The result is an organisation in which critical
expertise is held by a small number of individuals, creating a fragile concentration of
risk.
Third, staff turnover leads to permanent knowledge loss. When consultants leave, the
tacit knowledge they carry, including client relationships, institutional memory, and
accumulated professional judgment, leaves with them. This reflects a failure at the
externalisation stage of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model: the organisation
has not consistently converted consultant expertise into documented, persistent
forms. The risks that follow are reduced organisational memory, inconsistent client
delivery, and the expensive need to rebuild expertise from the beginning with replace-
ment staff.
Practical Strategies for Improvement
Addressing these weaknesses requires a combination of cultural, structural, and tech-
nological interventions. On culture, De Long and Fahey (2000) are clear that knowl-
edge sharing cannot be mandated; it must be incentivised. Performance manage-
ment systems that reward knowledge contribution, and leadership that models open
sharing, are prerequisites for cultural change. On structure, communities of practice
that cut across team boundaries would reduce silos by creating regular spaces for
cross-team dialogue and knowledge exchange (Senge, 1990). On technology, Daven-
port et al. (2020) argue that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools can now
support knowledge discovery and accessibility at a scale that was previously impos-
sible; integrating these tools with ImbizoTech’s existing repositories could surface
Page 2 of 30
, UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
relevant knowledge automatically rather than requiring individuals to know what to
search for. Exit protocols for departing staff, including structured knowledge trans-
fer sessions and detailed handover documentation, would reduce the risk of critical
knowledge loss with each resignation.
Critical Consideration
A recurring error in KM improvement programmes is treating the technology as
the solution. At ImbizoTech, the repositories and platforms are already there.
The knowledge is not flowing through them because the culture and incentives
do not support sharing. Investing in better systems before addressing the
underlying culture will produce better-designed containers that remain empty.
Table 1: KM Strengths, Weaknesses and Risks at ImbizoTech Solutions
Dimension Current State Associated Risk
Explicit Knowl- Repositories capture docu- Inconsistent use limits reuse
edge mented knowledge
Tacit Transfer Project teams and mentoring Hoarding interrupts the flow
support sharing
Knowledge Some processes for continuity Turnover causes irreversible
Retention exist loss
Cross-Team Limited; teams are siloed Duplication of effort; missed
Flow innovation
Culture Investments made in collabora- Incentives do not yet reward
tion structures sharing
Page 3 of 30
College of Science, Engineering and Technology
⋄
INS3705: Assignment 2
Information and Knowledge Management
Semester 1, 2026
⋄
Module Code: INS3705
Module Name: Information and Knowledge Manage-
ment
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: April 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for INS3705
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
Question 1: Knowledge Management at ImbizoTech Solutions
1.1 Critical Evaluation of Current KM Practices (10 marks)
ImbizoTech Solutions (Pty) Ltd derives its competitive advantage almost entirely
from the intellectual capabilities of its consultants. The organisation has invested
in digital collaboration platforms, project knowledge repositories, and structured
training and mentoring programmes, all of which align with the foundational view of
knowledge management as the systematic creation, storage, sharing, and application
of both tacit and explicit knowledge across an organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). Evaluating these investments honestly, however, reveals a pattern that is com-
mon in knowledge-intensive firms: the technology and structures are in place, but the
practices and culture lag behind.
Strengths
The digital repositories at ImbizoTech capture explicit knowledge in forms that per-
sist beyond individual consultants. Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue that the codifica-
tion of knowledge into shared systems is a core requirement for knowledge-intensive
organisations because it raises the accessibility and reusability of expertise across
the firm. Project-based team environments support the socialisation of tacit knowl-
edge, which Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identify as the process through which per-
sonal, experience-based expertise is transferred through shared practice and observa-
tion. Mentoring and training initiatives extend this transfer across levels of seniority,
creating channels through which the practice-based wisdom of senior consultants
flows to junior colleagues over time (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Weaknesses and Knowledge-Related Risks
Despite these strengths, ImbizoTech faces three serious weaknesses. First, knowl-
edge silos restrict the flow of information across teams and departments. When
each team accumulates expertise that never crosses organisational boundaries, the
Page 1 of 30
,UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
firm loses the combinatorial creativity that comes from connecting different knowl-
edge streams (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The practical consequence is duplica-
tion of effort, inconsistent service quality, and constrained innovation.
Second, knowledge hoarding by senior consultants represents a cultural failure. De
Long and Fahey (2000) identify organisational culture as the root cause of hoarding
behaviour: when individuals perceive their personal knowledge as a source of job
security or status, and when the incentive structure does not reward sharing, hoard-
ing becomes the rational response. The result is an organisation in which critical
expertise is held by a small number of individuals, creating a fragile concentration of
risk.
Third, staff turnover leads to permanent knowledge loss. When consultants leave, the
tacit knowledge they carry, including client relationships, institutional memory, and
accumulated professional judgment, leaves with them. This reflects a failure at the
externalisation stage of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model: the organisation
has not consistently converted consultant expertise into documented, persistent
forms. The risks that follow are reduced organisational memory, inconsistent client
delivery, and the expensive need to rebuild expertise from the beginning with replace-
ment staff.
Practical Strategies for Improvement
Addressing these weaknesses requires a combination of cultural, structural, and tech-
nological interventions. On culture, De Long and Fahey (2000) are clear that knowl-
edge sharing cannot be mandated; it must be incentivised. Performance manage-
ment systems that reward knowledge contribution, and leadership that models open
sharing, are prerequisites for cultural change. On structure, communities of practice
that cut across team boundaries would reduce silos by creating regular spaces for
cross-team dialogue and knowledge exchange (Senge, 1990). On technology, Daven-
port et al. (2020) argue that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools can now
support knowledge discovery and accessibility at a scale that was previously impos-
sible; integrating these tools with ImbizoTech’s existing repositories could surface
Page 2 of 30
, UNISA | INS3705 Information and Knowledge Management
relevant knowledge automatically rather than requiring individuals to know what to
search for. Exit protocols for departing staff, including structured knowledge trans-
fer sessions and detailed handover documentation, would reduce the risk of critical
knowledge loss with each resignation.
Critical Consideration
A recurring error in KM improvement programmes is treating the technology as
the solution. At ImbizoTech, the repositories and platforms are already there.
The knowledge is not flowing through them because the culture and incentives
do not support sharing. Investing in better systems before addressing the
underlying culture will produce better-designed containers that remain empty.
Table 1: KM Strengths, Weaknesses and Risks at ImbizoTech Solutions
Dimension Current State Associated Risk
Explicit Knowl- Repositories capture docu- Inconsistent use limits reuse
edge mented knowledge
Tacit Transfer Project teams and mentoring Hoarding interrupts the flow
support sharing
Knowledge Some processes for continuity Turnover causes irreversible
Retention exist loss
Cross-Team Limited; teams are siloed Duplication of effort; missed
Flow innovation
Culture Investments made in collabora- Incentives do not yet reward
tion structures sharing
Page 3 of 30
