Additionally, the very peculiar relationship between modern information technologies and the business must somehow be conceptualized if a proper model of knowledge transfer is to be attained. So, while in some cases, technology may serve as an obvious way to optimize the transfer of knowledge and overcome the barriers of routines, these same technologies, in different settings or with different individuals, will create more barriers and less effective routines. The fundamental concern must be attaining an applicable model of knowledge transfer, and perhaps the willingness to employ the idea of replication wherever it can be straightforwardly implemented.

Traditionally, many careers have been subject to gender specific designations. Obviously, numerous broad fields of work like medicine and law have historically been dominated by men, while women have been relegated to secretarial, nursing, or other subordinate positions. In recent decades this trend has come under fire and gender is no-longer widely accepted as an appropriate way to designate workers to specific realms. Not only has this pattern been questioned by advocates of equality, but is has also raised the question of how effectively an organization can actually be run in the presence of such discriminatory practices. So, the question of workplace diversity has come to the forefront of organizational theory because, if exercised properly, if can lead to more efficient knowledge transfer; but meanwhile, individual prejudices can serve to hinder the optimization of knowledge transfer.

However, a clear drawback of this emerging picture is that large organizations often look to information technology as the cure-all solution to the problems associated with inefficient routines and non-productive modes of knowledge transfer. Superficially, it seems as if such an approach should lend itself naturally to large organizations; however, the peculiar nature of knowledge often places unexpected pressures upon organizations, which it alone cannot address. One analyst argues that "companies need to convince people to reject old-school thinking that they are being measured by what they know and do individually. Such thinking only perpetuates knowledge hoarding, an unproductive remnant of an era when workers were...

They infuse themselves within the organization, and emerge naturally as ways to address problems, and manage decision-making processes. However, the natural occurrence of these routines is not often the most optimum arrangement for an organization to achieve its goals. In order for these routines to be reorganized in a manner that does succeed in this aim, there is a need for leadership, and the conscious effort of this leadership to employ knowledge management methodologies. As the literature has shown, haphazardly applying possible solutions can often magnify existing knowledge transfer problems, and even create new problems. Although there is an exceptional amount of it currently available, and it is continually evolving, a critical understanding of an individual organization is necessary to choose an appropriate application. Clearly, such knowledge requires a form of leadership, and this leadership much be attuned to the pressures of the organization, and be willing to analyze input-output patterns with reference to its intents and planned outcomes. So, from the theoretical perspective, the best tool to provide these knowledge managers is a comprehensive model -- or what could even be called a comprehensive principle method of replication -- from which to start, and to subsequently alter as individual pressures demand. This should be the purpose of current studies in KM, and these studies should make use of the growing amount of data becoming available to them.
Reference:

Cohen, M.D. et al. (1996). "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations." Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5, No. 3.

Woods, Bob. (2001). "Sharing the Intellectual Wealth." Chief Executive, July.

Cohen, M.D. et al. "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations." Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1996. Page 683.

Woods, Bob. "Sharing the Intellectual Wealth." Chief Executive, July 2001. Page 20.