Primary knowledge management practices applied in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) industries from 2001-2010

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to expose the main knowledge management (KM) practices applied in BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) industries using scientific literature published in the Scopus database from 2001 to 2010.

Design/methodology/approach

A search was performed in papers selected from the Scopus database, which houses the KM practices of industries in BRIC countries.

Findings

The results show that Brazil, Russia and India have an easier way of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge compared to China, where informal relationships of trust and friendship play a special role within organizations, as well as where the political structure (communism) is an intervening factor. Brazil, Russia and India practice similar KM mechanisms such as the use of technology, process standardization and electronic data management. They also model the positive experiences of western companies. In China, interpersonal relationships shape the tacit and explicit features of organizations.

Research limitations/implications

The methodological filter could potentially limit the volume of responses, as not every case study can demonstrate the usual practices of KM. Empirical studies are able to capture the nuances and even provide a holistic picture of these practices.

Practical Implications

The results have practical implication, in particular. They are expected to help managers and workers to better comprehend KM practices in BRIC countries or even suggest new KM practices in the business.

Originality/value

The main discussion of this paper brings together a large range of KM practices applied in BRIC, addressing similarities and differences between KM deployments.

Citation

Klafke, R.V., Lievore, C., Picinin, C.T., de Francisco, A.C. and Pilatti, L.A. (2016), "Primary knowledge management practices applied in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) industries from 2001-2010", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 812-828. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2015-0522