Understanding the key factors influencing knowledge management in business environments: a systematic review

2.1 Knowledge management

KM is a systematic approach to capturing, sharing, and utilizing organizational knowledge to drive innovation, improve efficiency, and gain competitive advantage.¹⁷ Knowledge is considered a critical asset for organizations, encompassing best practices, decision-making processes, and creativity that are difficult for competitors to replicate. KM emerged to standardize creating, disseminating, and applying informational assets within businesses to promote growth and competitive edge. It involves the strategic management of intellectual resources, which is essential for creating value and fostering organizational success.² Research indicates that effective KM practices are integral to corporate sustainability, as organizations rely on acquiring and applying new knowledge to build core competencies and ensure long-term success.¹⁸

Aligning KM with organizational objectives supports sustainable growth and strengthens long-term competitiveness. Recent studies highlight the significant impact of KM capabilities on improving organizational performance.¹¹ Nonetheless, knowledge must be tailored to the organization’s unique context. Knowledge is recognized as an essential resource for generating value and maintaining competitive advantages in a volatile environment.¹⁹ Additionally, the methods through which knowledge is generated and applied within companies are key, inimitable competencies that managers must identify and develop to foster lasting competitive advantages.²⁰ Effectively managing knowledge is vital for organizations aiming to stay competitive and sustainable in an ever-changing business environment. By aligning KM practices with organizational goals and adapting them to specific contexts, companies can enhance performance, create value, and maintain a long-term competitive edge.

KM is key in supporting organizational learning and adaptability by capturing insights from past experiences and promoting reflection and feedback. These processes enhance a firm’s resilience and agility, allowing it to thrive in dynamic environments. Additionally, KM helps preserve valuable knowledge assets in the face of technological changes, mitigating risks and ensuring their effective use to maintain a competitive edge.⁷ To fully leverage the competitive advantages of information management, managers need to adopt supportive attitudes and a human-centered mindset, which can motivate employees to embrace new and existing knowledge. On the other hand, a closed-minded workforce and rigid management styles can undermine knowledge management efforts, ultimately stifling innovation and reducing the organization’s ability to adapt.²¹ Successful KM drives organizational learning, flexibility, and innovation. By fostering a culture of support and ensuring that valuable knowledge is preserved and applied effectively, organizations can adapt to changing environments and sustain their competitive edge.

In this study, KM is understood through a process-based perspective. This perspective views KM as a set of interrelated organizational processes through which knowledge is created, acquired, shared, stored, and applied to support organizational decision-making, innovation, and performance. This understanding provides the conceptual basis for analyzing the factors that influence KM effectiveness, because each factor can be interpreted according to its role in enabling or strengthening KM processes. Therefore, the conceptual framework developed in this review is grounded in the process-based understanding of KM rather than in a simple categorization of variables.

2.2 Systematic literature review

A systematic literature review (SLR) is a methodical approach to research that involves gathering and evaluating studies on a specific topic. It serves various functions, such as identifying, reviewing, analyzing, and interpreting studies that address particular research questions. SLRs are often vital for shaping a research agenda, forming part of a dissertation or thesis, or assisting with research grant proposals. This method is widely used by researchers and scholars to review scientific literature, as it helps reduce bias and subjective interpretations of the results. SLR provides a comprehensive overview of research trends, their effectiveness, and the scope of earlier studies in a given field.²²

A systematic review adheres to established methodologies and guidelines for thoroughly searching, filtering, reviewing, evaluating, interpreting, synthesizing, and presenting findings from various publications on a specific subject. Its goal is to compile the most complete set of relevant literature, assess the quality of individual studies, and exclude those of low quality. With its comprehensive documentation of processes and assumptions, an SLR is designed to be replicable, often requiring a team of at least two people to minimize bias. Although time-consuming, the rigorous process of SLRs ensures they are a highly reliable source of evidence on a given topic. The PRISMA statement, introduced in 2009 by an international group of healthcare researchers, was developed to enhance the methodological rigor and quality of SLRs and meta-analyses. Initially intended for reviewing randomized trials, PRISMA has since been adapted to a range of research types. The systematic review process consists of several crucial steps: formulating the research question, forming a review team, defining search areas and sources, performing a systematic search, critically analyzing the data, interpreting the findings, and reporting the results.²³

3.1 Data source

The data source for this systematic literature review was the Scopus database. Scopus was used because it provides access to peer-reviewed journal articles across business, management, organizational studies, and related fields. The database also allows the application of filters such as publication year, document type, source type, language, and access type, which supported the identification and screening of studies in a systematic manner.

The use of a single database was a methodological limitation of this review because relevant studies indexed in other databases, such as Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCO, or Google Scholar, may not have been captured. Nevertheless, Scopus was used to maintain a focused and manageable review scope. The review therefore provides a focused synthesis of recent Scopus-indexed studies on knowledge management.

3.2 Literature search strategy

The literature search was systematically designed to investigate and gather various comprehensive sources discussing KM. This study uses the SLR approach suggested by.²² Conducted in January 2025, the systematic literature review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The search was conducted in Scopus, chosen for its extensive, high-quality coverage of peer-reviewed journals. The Scopus search used the single explicit keyword “Knowledge Management” applied to the TITLE-ABS-KEY fields.

The review targeted publications from 2020 to 2024 to ensure coverage of the most recent developments in Knowledge Management research. This approach seeks to provide a thorough and nuanced understanding of various perspectives and findings in the field.

3.3 Inclusion criteria

This study involved a manual article review process in five stages, including title, abstract, and full-text review. Relevant sources were defined through specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to guarantee their relevance and quality. The following inclusion criteria (IC) were used as guidelines for the systematic literature review to ensure the selection of relevant and high-quality studies:

These criteria were applied to maintain the focus and consistency of the review. However, they also limited the scope of the study by excluding non-open-access articles, non-English publications, studies outside the 2020–2024 period, conference papers, book chapters, and review articles. Therefore, the selected studies should be understood as a focused body of evidence on KM determinants rather than an exhaustive representation of the entire KM literature.

3.4 Study selection

1) Initial search (Identification)

Scopus search with the single keyword “Knowledge Management” (TITLE-ABS-KEY) returned 33871 records.

2) Limits/filters applied

TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Knowledge Management”) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE,“j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,“all”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,“English”))

Records remaining: 4903

3) Title/abstract screening (IC4)

Include if the title/abstract explicitly indicates KM as the topic.

Records remaining: 228

4) Full-text eligibility (IC5)

Include empirical studies that examine determinants/critical factors influencing KM. 44 articles included in the study.

Further details of the query, filters, and counts are provided in Table 1.

A PRISMA flow diagram was created and shown in Figure 1 to detail the article selection process.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flow diagram.

3.5 Data extraction and analysis

Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardized form covering author name(s), year of publication, article title, research method/design, study purpose, and key findings/results. Any discrepancies were reconciled through discussion (with a third reviewer available if needed). Extracted records were organized into a master table and synthesized narratively/thematically to address the research questions, highlighting convergent patterns and notable divergences across studies.

4.1 Result and qualitative synthesis

The chart in Figure 2 shows the progression in the number of publications focusing on KM over the years. Between 2020 and 2022, the number of documents increased considerably, indicating a rising interest in KM as a research area. This growth could be linked to heightened awareness of its role in supporting digital transformation and organizational adaptability. By 2023, the number of publications reached its peak, exceeding 1,100, showcasing the topic’s prominence and relevance during that year. However, a slight decline in the number of documents occurred in 2024, which may point to a shift in research priorities, the conclusion of significant studies, or natural variations in publication patterns. The chart reflects the growing importance of KM as a research field, driven by organizational demands in an increasingly digital and dynamic environment.

Figure 2. Distribution of selected studies over 5 years.

The research data from the SCOPUS database was retrieved using the following search terms: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Knowledge Management”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)). The initial search resulted in 33,871 articles. These articles were then filtered and selected based on the inclusion criteria specified in IC1-IC5 by reviewing their titles, abstracts, and keywords. This screening process reduced the selection to 228 articles, which were fully reviewed. After completing this thorough selection, 44 articles were chosen for further examination.

From the 33.871 articles identified through Scopus, published between 2020 and 2024, these studies employed quantitative research approaches and explored various aspects of KM across different countries and industries. A qualitative analysis was also conducted on the 44 selected articles, as shown in Table 2.

Following the qualitative synthesis in Table 2, a consolidated overview of the key variables examined across the 44 included studies is presented in Table 3. The table reports each variable, its operational meaning in the KM context, and its frequency of occurrence across the sample. This summary provides a clear snapshot of the constructs most frequently linked to KM in business settings and sets up the subsequent discussion.

4.2 Discussion

This systematic review explores the key factors influencing KM in business environments, analyzing 44 articles published between 2020 and 2024. The studies reviewed cover various aspects of KM, including methodologies, dimensions, and geographic contexts, offering a comprehensive understanding of its dynamics in organizational settings. The findings highlight the impact of leadership, technology, entrepreneurship, strategic orientation, learning orientation, human resources, high-performance work systems, and innovation on KM practices. Therefore, the discussion will focus on the importance of each variable and explore the challenges associated with their application based on the insights gathered from the selected articles.

4.2.1 Leadership

The ten reviewed studies highlight that leadership is vital in enhancing KM within organizations. Leadership styles, such as transformational, sustainable, clinical, and strategic leadership, drive KM practices, fostering innovation, improving performance, and contributing to organizational sustainability. For instance, Achmad and Wiratmadja²⁴ demonstrate how sustainable leadership enhances KM practices to support frugal innovation and long-term performance in SMEs. Similarly, Kılıç and Uludağ¹⁶ and Sapta et al.⁴³ emphasize the significant role of transformational leadership in promoting knowledge sharing and creation, leading to improved performance in public institutions and traditional organizations. Furthermore, Al-Sous et al.¹⁹ highlight the impact of knowledge-oriented leadership in fostering innovation performance through enhanced KM processes in Jordanian manufacturing firms.

Several studies also explore KM and organizational culture’s mediating and moderating roles in leadership-KM relationships. Ferede et al.²⁵ identify KM as a key mediator between strategic leadership and organizational change, emphasizing the importance of accountability and cultural integration. Similarly, Makiah et al.³⁶ show how clinical leadership in healthcare promotes patient safety culture by leveraging KM to facilitate knowledge sharing and organizational learning. Chung and Espinoza⁸ further reveal that organizational culture strengthens the positive influence of transformational leadership on KM in academic institutions, highlighting the importance of a collaborative and adaptive culture. Additionally, studies such as Rezaei et al.⁹ and Hossain et al.¹⁸ demonstrate the role of KM in mediating leadership’s influence on sustainable performance, underscoring its critical importance in leveraging human capital and ensuring long-term organizational success.

These findings collectively underline the central role of leadership in fostering a knowledge-driven culture and optimizing KM practices. Leadership styles prioritizing collaboration, innovation, and accountability enable organizations to harness KM as a strategic tool for achieving competitive advantage, innovation, and sustainability. However, challenges such as resource constraints and resistance to knowledge sharing highlight the need for tailored leadership approaches and strategic investments in KM systems to maximize their impact. Leadership remains a cornerstone in driving effective KM across various sectors, fostering collaboration, innovation, and adaptability. By addressing existing challenges and exploring new approaches, leadership can further optimize KM practices, ultimately supporting organizational growth and long-term success in an ever-evolving global landscape.

4.2.2 Technology

Technology has emerged as a cornerstone in advancing KM processes across diverse sectors, from education to government and private enterprises. Aljehani et al.¹⁷ emphasize that integrating big data analytics (BDA) significantly enhances KM by enabling organizations to extract, store, and apply actionable insights that drive organizational performance. Similarly, Ramírez et al.⁴¹ demonstrate the role of digitalization in fostering innovation capabilities through effective KM strategies, highlighting how digital tools optimize resource utilization and enhance decision-making processes. In the context of SMEs, Jasin et al.²⁷ reveal that digital literacy empowers employees to leverage KM for process innovation, suggesting that technology facilitates knowledge sharing and utilization at all organizational levels.

Moreover, advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and knowledge management systems further strengthen KM practices. Mahboub and Ghanem²⁹ show that AI enhances knowledge acquisition, distribution, and application, significantly boosting organizational performance in the banking sector. Abu-Alsondos² emphasizes the role of knowledge management system in facilitating collaboration and knowledge-sharing activities, improving decision-making and operational efficiency when aligned with organizational strategies. Shafiee et al.¹⁰ further elaborate on the importance of technology in supporting KM, illustrating its role in simplifying processes and ensuring knowledge accessibility within universities. These studies collectively underline the transformative role of technology in enhancing KM by enabling seamless communication, fostering collaboration, and driving innovation.

Several studies show that technology’s impact on KM extends to broader organizational outcomes. Susanto and Makmur³¹ highlight how IT adoption in e-government frameworks improves public services and administrative efficiency while enabling robust KM practices. Rezaei et al.⁹ explore KM implementation in Afghanistan’s Kabul Steel Plant, demonstrating that while technology positively influences KM, its success is amplified with leadership, organizational culture, and trust. In conclusion, integrating technology into knowledge management practices has proven to be a transformative force in driving innovation and organizational performance. By addressing challenges such as digital literacy gaps, resource limitations, and integration complexities, organizations can fully leverage technology’s potential to create a sustainable competitive advantage and adapt to the demands of an increasingly digital and knowledge-driven world.

4.2.3 Entrepreneurial

As the three reviewed studies highlighted, entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is crucial in shaping and enhancing organizational KM. These articles collectively demonstrate how entrepreneurial behaviors such as innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking positively influence KM processes, which, in turn, contribute to improved firm performance and innovation. Sumathi and Padhy²⁸ highlight how an entrepreneurial culture in the electric vehicle sector in India drives technological innovation through KM, emphasizing the importance of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization. Similarly, Kusa et al.³⁴ identify KM as a critical mediator between EO dimensions and firm performance, demonstrating how entrepreneurial behaviors promote knowledge creation and sharing as strategic resources for competitive advantage. Additionally, Kusa et al.⁶ further reveal the causal relationship between EO and KM, showing that entrepreneurial efforts enhance KM practices and contribute to organizational growth and competitiveness.

The studies collectively underline the significance of integrating entrepreneurial behaviors with KM to unlock innovation and sustain competitive advantages. Entrepreneurial orientation encourages aligning KM practices with strategic decision-making, enabling firms to capitalize on opportunities and navigate market dynamics effectively. However, challenges such as limited resources, underdeveloped KM systems, and industry-specific constraints highlight the need for further research. Addressing these challenges will enable organizations to strengthen the synergy between entrepreneurship and KM, ensuring sustainable growth and innovation. Fostering a strong alignment between entrepreneurial orientation and KM is essential for organizations to drive innovation, sustain competitive advantage, and adapt to dynamic market environments. By addressing existing challenges and leveraging entrepreneurial behaviors, firms can optimize knowledge processes for long-term growth and success.

4.2.4 Strategic orientation

Effective strategy is dynamic, adaptive, and rooted in clearly understanding an organization’s vision, mission, and objectives. A well-defined strategy ensures that KM is not an isolated function but an integrated component of the organization’s overall direction. This alignment allows organizations to capture, share, and apply knowledge to support innovation, enhance decision-making, and improve operational efficiency. Abazeed⁴⁶ demonstrates that strategic capabilities, such as marketing and management, significantly enhance KM by aligning internal resources with market opportunities, particularly in the banking sector. Similarly, Abuanzeh et al.³ emphasize the impact of strategic agility on KM, showing that agility enables organizations to adapt to rapid market changes and improve their knowledge-sharing processes, ensuring competitiveness and sustainability. Abu-Alsondos² adds that a well-defined organizational strategy is essential for the success of knowledge management systems, as it ensures that KM practices are aligned with corporate objectives, fostering resource optimization, knowledge sharing, and innovation.

Rezaei et al.⁹ further highlight the importance of aligning KM initiatives with strategic objectives to foster knowledge sharing, innovation, and organizational learning. KM efforts may lack direction without a coherent strategy, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. Collectively, these studies underscore that strategic integration is pivotal to the success of KM, ensuring its alignment with organizational goals and enhancing adaptability, innovation, and performance. Future research should explore the influence of different strategic frameworks on KM effectiveness across industries and cultural contexts to provide deeper insights into their interplay.

4.2.5 Learning orientation

Qin et al.¹¹ emphasize that fostering a continuous organizational learning culture significantly improves KM practices, particularly in the Chinese IT sector. By embedding learning-oriented practices, organizations can optimize knowledge sharing, storage, and application, which is essential for navigating rapid technological changes and achieving sustainable performance. Similarly, Al-Sous et al.¹⁹ highlight the importance of integrating e-learning systems with KM in Jordanian manufacturing companies. Their findings show that e-learning enhances knowledge transfer, storage, and utilization as a strategic component of organizational learning, creating a dynamic environment that supports KM processes and improves organizational performance. Together, these studies underscore that cultivating a strong learning culture and leveraging technology-enabled learning systems are crucial for strengthening KM frameworks and ensuring adaptability and competitiveness in dynamic environments.

4.2.6 Innovation

Innovation is deeply interconnected with the effective management of knowledge within an organization. KM facilitates innovation by providing the tools and processes to capture, share, and apply knowledge. This includes leveraging organizational knowledge to generate new ideas, fostering collaboration, and integrating knowledge into decision-making processes. Hussien et al.¹⁴ highlight that sustainable innovation fosters KM by improving organizational processes and integrating innovative practices that align with knowledge management systems. Their study on SMEs in Saudi Arabia demonstrates how sustainable innovation supports the development of IT capabilities and KM practices, contributing to improved business performance. Similarly, Kanaan et al.¹³ emphasize the role of open innovation in entrepreneurial firms, illustrating that KM mediates the relationship between open innovation and organizational performance. This mediation demonstrates KM’s pivotal role in utilizing innovation to enhance stakeholder relationships and achieve competitive advantages.

Nyuga and Tanova⁷ provide additional insights, focusing on the hospitality industry in Cameroon. Their study shows how technological innovation positively influences KM by enabling efficient collection, organization, and information sharing. When paired with technological advancements, they found that KM systems significantly enhance operational efficiency and service quality, contributing to sustainable competitive advantages. Organizations can better adapt to market demands and technological changesby fostering a culture of innovation and knowledge exchange.

These studies collectively demonstrate the integral role of innovation in enhancing KM practices. Sustainable and technological innovations enable organizations to optimize KM systems, fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptation. By leveraging innovation, organizations can effectively utilize knowledge, thus gaining a competitive edge and driving long-term success.

4.2.7 Human resource management (HRM)

HRM functions such as recruitment, training, performance management, and employee development are critical in fostering a culture of knowledge sharing and utilization. By hiring individuals with the right skills and fostering continuous learning, organizations create an environment where knowledge can be effectively acquired, shared, and applied. The study by Kokkaew et al.⁵ highlights that effective HRM practices, when aligned with organizational learning, significantly enhance the processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization in the Thai construction industry. They emphasize that the fragmented nature of construction work poses challenges to KM. However, HRM practices, such as selective recruitment and employee development, help overcome these barriers by fostering an environment conducive to learning and innovation.

Similarly, Abu-Mahfouz et al.⁴ argue that sustainable HRM practices are essential for optimizing KM systems in higher education institutions in Jordan. Their findings reveal that practices like training, employee engagement, and structured development programs enhance KM’s effectiveness and contribute to organizational performance. By integrating KM with HRM strategies, institutions can achieve greater collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation, reinforcing their competitive advantage in dynamic environments.

Both studies highlight the essential interplay between HRM practices and KM, emphasizing that robust HRM systems are a foundation for effective KM implementation. Organizations should prioritize sustainable and learning-oriented HRM practices to cultivate a knowledge-driven culture that fosters long-term growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. A strong focus on employee engagement and motivation ensures the seamless flow of knowledge across departments, enhancing organizational performance and competitiveness. Integrating HRM practices with KM strategies ultimately empowers organizations to establish a sustainable, knowledge-centered culture that drives innovation, resilience, and sustained success.

4.2.8 High-performance work systems

High-performance work systems (HPWS) refer to interrelated HRM practices designed to maximize employee performance, engagement, and contribution to organizational goals. These systems typically include practices such as selective recruitment, comprehensive training, performance-based rewards, employee empowerment, and participative decision-making. By equipping employees with the necessary skills and providing opportunities for collaboration and autonomy, HPWS enables effective knowledge sharing, acquisition, and utilization. The study by Portalanza-Chavarría and Revuelto-Taboada¹⁵ highlight that HPWS is pivotal in fostering knowledge-sharing processes, enhancing employee capabilities, and facilitating collaboration. These systems provide employees the necessary resources, training, and autonomy to participate actively in KM processes. By empowering employees through targeted HRM practices, HPWS encourages acquiring, sharing, and applying knowledge, which is essential for organizational learning and innovation.

Similarly, Revuelto-Taboada et al.³⁸ emphasize that HPWS are instrumental in promoting a knowledge-driven culture, particularly in knowledge-intensive industries like banking. Their findings suggest that HPWS creates an environment conducive to effective KM by aligning employee behaviors with organizational goals. HPWS facilitates knowledge acquisition and interpretation processes, enabling organizations to adapt to dynamic market conditions and maintain a competitive edge. These systems enhance individual and team knowledge-sharing behaviors and contribute to building a sustainable framework for continuous learning and innovation.

Both studies underscore the importance of HPWS in driving KM processes. By integrating robust HRM practices into their strategies, organizations can establish a strong foundation for KM, ensuring adaptability and long-term success in an ever-changing business environment. HPWS is a critical enabler for fostering a knowledge-centered culture and enhancing organizational resilience and innovation capacity.

4.3 Conceptual framework

Based on the synthesis of the reviewed studies, this review develops a conceptual framework to explain how the identified factors collectively support KM effectiveness. The framework is theoretically justified through a process-based understanding of KM, which explains KM effectiveness as the result of organizational conditions that support the creation, acquisition, sharing, storage, and application of knowledge. The framework is not intended to present the variables as isolated determinants. Instead, it organizes the factors according to their conceptual roles in supporting the core processes of KM. This process-based interpretation allows the findings to move beyond a descriptive list of variables and provides a more integrated explanation of how different organizational conditions shape KM effectiveness.

The grouping of variables was developed inductively from recurring patterns in the reviewed studies. The categories were not determined solely based on frequency of occurrence, but on the conceptual function of each variable in relation to KM effectiveness. Thus, the grouping reflects how the reviewed studies position each factor in supporting KM, rather than merely how often each factor appears. Previous research included in this review shows that KM is shaped by strategic direction, technological infrastructure, human and learning-related capabilities, and innovation-oriented capability. Therefore, the eight identified variables are grouped into four conceptual categories: Strategic Drivers, Technological Enablers, Human and Learning Capabilities, and Innovation Capabilities.

As summarized in Table 4, the eight identified variables are organized into four broader categories: Strategic Drivers, Technological Enablers, Human and Learning Capabilities, and Innovation Capabilities. Strategic Drivers capture studies that connect KM with leadership, strategy, and organizational alignment, such as Achmad and Wiratmadja,²⁴ Ferede et al.,²⁵ and Abuanzeh et al..³ Technological Enablers reflect studies that position digital tools and systems as infrastructure for KM, including Aljehani et al.,¹⁷ Mahboub and Ghanem,²⁹ and Sánchez Ramírez et al..⁴¹ Human and Learning Capabilities are grounded in studies on HRM, HPWS, and learning-related practices, such as Kokkaew et al.,⁵ Portalanza-Chavarría and Revuelto-Taboada,¹⁵ and Qin et al..¹¹ Innovation Capabilities represent studies that link KM with entrepreneurial orientation, innovation, and organizational renewal, including Kusa et al.,³⁴ Kanaan et al.,¹³ and Alfaro-Ramos and Ferreras-Méndez.²⁰

A cross-study comparison shows that the reviewed literature does not position KM factors in the same way. Some studies treat KM as an outcome that is strengthened by leadership, strategy, technology, HRM, or learning-related practices. For example, studies on strategic agility and strategic capabilities emphasize the role of organizational direction in supporting KM.³ Other studies position KM as a mediating mechanism that links organizational resources to broader outcomes, such as innovation, performance, sustainability, or competitive advantage. This pattern can be seen in studies linking artificial intelligence, entrepreneurial orientation, and innovation-related practices with KM and organizational outcomes.²⁹ In contrast, studies on HRM, HPWS, and learning orientation place greater emphasis on employee participation, capability development, and knowledge-sharing behavior as conditions that activate KM in organizational routines.⁵ These differences show that KM is not only influenced by separate factors, but also operates as a connecting mechanism between organizational conditions and organizational outcomes.

Based on this grouping, Figure 3 visualizes the integrative conceptual framework of KM effectiveness. The framework shows that KM effectiveness is not shaped by a single determinant, but by the alignment of strategic, technological, human-learning, and innovation-related conditions.

Figure 3. Integrative conceptual framework of KM.

As shown in Figure 3, the framework should be read as a process-based synthesis. The four conceptual categories represent different organizational conditions that enable KM processes to operate more effectively. Strategic Drivers provide the direction and alignment needed to connect KM with broader organizational priorities, as reflected in studies on strategic agility and strategic capabilities.³ Technological Enablers provide the infrastructure through which knowledge can be captured, processed, stored, and distributed, particularly in studies that examine digitalization, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics.¹⁷ Human and Learning Capabilities explain why KM cannot rely only on systems, because employee capability, learning routines, and participation are necessary for knowledge processes to become embedded in organizational practice.⁵ Innovation Capabilities further extend the framework by showing that KM is closely connected to creativity, opportunity development, and organizational renewal.¹³

The arrows in Figure 3 indicate that the four categories influence KM effectiveness through the core processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, storage, and application. This means that KM effectiveness does not emerge simply because an organization possesses leadership, technology, HRM practices, or innovation orientation. Instead, these conditions become meaningful when they strengthen how knowledge is acquired, shared among organizational members, retained in organizational systems, and applied in decision-making or problem-solving. For example, Abu-Alsondos² shows that knowledge management systems are more effective when they are aligned with organizational strategy. Similarly, Mahboub and Ghanem²⁹ demonstrate that artificial intelligence contributes to organizational performance through KM practices, indicating that technological resources need to be translated into knowledge processes before they create value.

The framework also emphasizes complementarity among the four categories. Strategic direction may define the purpose of KM, but it requires technological infrastructure to support knowledge flows. Digital tools may improve access to knowledge, but they may remain underutilized without employee motivation, learning orientation, and supportive work systems. Studies on HPWS suggest that employee involvement and supervisor support are important for activating knowledge-related behavior.¹⁵ Likewise, innovation-oriented capability gives KM a renewal function by directing knowledge use toward opportunity recognition and new value creation, as shown in studies linking entrepreneurial orientation and KM with firm performance.³⁴ Therefore, the framework suggests that the contribution of each category becomes stronger when it is connected with the others.

This interpretation helps clarify the conceptual contribution of the review. Instead of presenting the eight variables as separate determinants of KM, the framework organizes them into an integrated system of conditions that support KM processes. This structure shows that KM effectiveness depends on the alignment between strategic direction, technological infrastructure, human-learning capability, and innovation orientation. Such an interpretation is consistent with previous studies showing that KM becomes more effective when it is embedded in organizational strategy,⁴⁶ supported by digital capability,⁴¹ reinforced by employee development practices,⁴⁰ and connected to innovation capability.²¹ Therefore, the proposed framework strengthens the analytical value of the review by moving from a descriptive list of factors toward a more integrated explanation of KM effectiveness.

4.4 Theoretical and practical implications

The conceptual framework developed in this review has several theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the framework suggests that KM effectiveness should not be understood as the result of a single dominant factor, but as the outcome of alignment among strategic, technological, human-learning, and innovation-related conditions. This implication is important because many KM studies tend to examine individual determinants separately. By organizing the identified variables into broader conceptual categories, this review offers a more integrated explanation of how KM is supported through knowledge acquisition, sharing, storage, and application.

First, the findings imply that KM research needs to pay greater attention to the interdependence among organizational conditions. Strategic direction can guide KM priorities, but it may not produce effective KM when technological infrastructure, employee capability, and innovation orientation are weak. Previous studies on strategic agility and strategic capabilities show that strategy becomes meaningful for KM when it is connected to organizational adaptability and competitiveness.³ Similarly, studies on digitalization and knowledge management systems indicate that technology contributes to KM only when it is embedded in organizational processes rather than treated as a standalone tool.⁴¹ Therefore, future KM research should move beyond testing isolated relationships and examine how different categories of KM enablers interact with each other.

Second, the framework has implications for how organizations design KM initiatives. Managers should avoid implementing KM as a purely technological project. Although digital tools, artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and knowledge management systems can support knowledge storage and distribution, their value depends on the organizational conditions that enable employees to use them effectively. For example, studies on big data analytics and artificial intelligence show that technology can improve KM and organizational outcomes when it supports knowledge processing and application.¹⁷ However, without employee readiness, learning routines, and supportive work systems, technological investment may not automatically strengthen KM effectiveness.

Third, the findings highlight the importance of human and learning-related capabilities in KM implementation. Organizations need to ensure that employees are not only provided with access to knowledge, but are also motivated and capable of sharing, interpreting, and applying it. HRM, employee development, HPWS, and learning-oriented practices therefore need to be aligned with KM objectives. This implication is supported by studies showing that HRM and employee development practices strengthen KM through human capital, social capital, and organizational learning.⁵ In practical terms, organizations should integrate KM into training programs, performance evaluation, employee engagement systems, and collaborative work routines.

Fourth, the framework implies that KM should be connected to innovation and organizational renewal. KM becomes more valuable when knowledge is not only stored or transferred, but also used to identify opportunities, solve problems, and generate new ideas. Studies on entrepreneurial orientation and open innovation show that KM supports creativity, innovation, and firm performance when knowledge is actively applied to opportunity development and renewal processes.³⁴ Therefore, organizations should design KM practices that encourage experimentation, cross-functional collaboration, and the transformation of knowledge into innovative outcomes.

Finally, the framework provides implications for future research. Subsequent studies can use the four conceptual categories proposed in this review as a basis for developing more specific empirical models of KM effectiveness. Future research may examine whether Strategic Drivers, Technological Enablers, Human and Learning Capabilities, and Innovation Capabilities have different levels of influence across industries, organizational sizes, and national contexts. Researchers can also investigate whether KM processes mediate the relationship between these categories and organizational outcomes such as innovation performance, sustainability, competitive advantage, and organizational adaptability. In this way, the proposed framework can serve as a foundation for more theory-informed and empirically testable KM research.

5.1 Conclusion

The discussions emphasize the pivotal role of KM as a faoundational element for organizational success. Across 44 studies, innovation and technology are the most frequent co-occurring drivers of KM, followed by leadership and strategic orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation, human resource management, learning orientation, and HPWS appear less often but consistently. Based on the synthesis, these factors can be understood through four broader conceptual categories: Strategic Drivers, Technological Enablers, Human and Learning Capabilities, and Innovation Capabilities.

This review shows that KM effectiveness is not shaped by a single determinant, but by the alignment of strategic, technological, human-learning, and innovation-related conditions. Strategic Drivers provide direction and organizational alignment for KM practices. Technological Enablers support knowledge acquisition, storage, sharing, and application through digital tools and systems. Human and Learning Capabilities strengthen employee participation, learning routines, and knowledge-sharing behavior. Innovation Capabilities connect KM with creativity, opportunity recognition, and organizational renewal.

Collectively, these findings indicate that KM should not be viewed merely as a set of separate practices, but as an integrated process that depends on the interaction of multiple organizational conditions. The conceptual framework developed in this review contributes by showing how the identified factors jointly support the core KM processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, storage, and application. In doing so, the review provides a more structured understanding of how KM promotes innovation, adaptability, and sustained organizational performance.

5.2 Limitations

This study should be interpreted in light of the methodological boundaries described in the Methods section. Because the review applied a focused search and eligibility strategy, the final body of evidence may not capture all relevant streams of KM scholarship, particularly studies that discuss KM-related issues using different terminology or appear outside the defined inclusion scope. Therefore, the findings should be understood as a focused synthesis of the selected studies rather than a complete representation of the entire KM literature.

Several specific limitations should be acknowledged. First, the review relied on Scopus as the only database, which means that relevant studies indexed in other databases may not have been captured. Second, the use of the specific keyword “Knowledge Management” may have excluded studies that examine related KM issues using different terms, such as knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, or knowledge application. Third, the inclusion criteria were limited to open-access, English-language journal articles published between 2020 and 2024. As a result, relevant non-open-access studies, non-English publications, and studies outside the selected period were not included. Future research should consider addressing these limitations by using multiple databases, broader keyword combinations, wider language coverage, and less restrictive inclusion criteria to provide a more comprehensive synthesis of KM scholarship.

5.3 Recommendations

The findings suggest that organizations should integrate KM into their core strategies to optimize its potential. This requires aligning KM practices with strategic direction, investing in appropriate technological infrastructure, strengthening human resource and learning systems, and fostering an innovation-oriented culture. Managers should avoid treating KM as a purely technological initiative. Instead, KM should be designed as an organizational capability supported by leadership commitment, employee participation, continuous learning, and digital readiness.

Practically, organizations need to ensure that knowledge is not only stored or shared, but also actively applied in decision-making, problem-solving, and innovation processes. Policymakers and industry leaders can support KM adoption by promoting access to digital infrastructure, developing training programs to improve organizational capabilities, and encouraging cross-industry knowledge-sharing initiatives. Organizations that align strategic, technological, human-learning, and innovation-related conditions will be better positioned to adapt to changing environments, generate new ideas, and maintain competitive advantage.

Future research should further examine the relationships among the four conceptual categories proposed in this review: Strategic Drivers, Technological Enablers, Human and Learning Capabilities, and Innovation Capabilities. Subsequent studies may investigate whether these categories have different levels of influence across industries, organizational sizes, and cultural contexts. More importantly, future quantitative research is recommended to develop and test hypotheses based on the proposed conceptual framework. For example, researchers may examine the direct effects of these four categories on KM processes and KM effectiveness, as well as the mediating role of KM processes, such as knowledge acquisition, sharing, storage, and application, in linking organizational conditions to outcomes such as innovation performance, sustainability, adaptability, and competitive advantage. Methods such as structural equation modeling may be used to empirically validate the framework and assess the strength of relationships among its constructs. These directions will strengthen KM research by moving beyond the identification of individual factors toward a more integrated and empirically testable understanding of KM effectiveness.